Articles (2020)

Introduction

Dion snowshoes are available in pre-assembled models or as a modular system where you choose the frame, binding, and cleat that you want. So you can easily build your own system and have extra components to interchange in the field for different snow conditions. I tested the Model 168 with the basic binding and Standard Flex Cleat.

What’s Good

• Modular system lets you select frame, binding, and cleat
• Aircraft aluminum alloy frame
• 7075 aluminum alloy crampons are very durable
• Teflon-coated crampons resist icing
• Strong, lightweight deck and harness material
• Solidly built and very durable

What’s not so Good

• Webbing straps on basic binding are cumbersome to tighten and loosen
• Heel strap on size large basic binding is too short for tightening, but an extra long stap is available
• Tails flip snow onto your backside

Specifications

Manufacturer	Dion Snowshoes
Year/Model	2004-05 Model 168 Rec/Fitness
Dimensions	8 in wide x 25 in long (20 cm x 64 cm)
Surface area	Measured surface area 173 in2 (1116 cm2), manufacturer specification 168 in2 (1084 cm2)
Frame	Aircraft aluminum alloy tubing, 3/4 in (2 cm) diameter, powder coated
Deck	Durable, abrasion resistant material
Binding	Durable, abrasion resistant material; two bindings available (basic and quick-fit) in different sizes (basic binding tested in size large)
Crampons	7075 aluminum alloy with Teflon impregnated hardcoat coating; two cleats available (Standard Flex Cleat, Deep Flex Cleat)
Weight	Measured weight 3.3 lb (1.5 kg) per pair; manufacturer specification 3.3 lb (1.5 kg)
Load rating	Up to 200 pounds (91 kg)
MSRP	$197

Performance

Dion snowshoes are available in several different models, or you can build your own system by choosing the frame, binding, and cleat (front crampon) that you want. Bindings are available in different sizes. The binding and cleat (front crampon) are attached to the underside of a flexible pivot strap using two locking screws, so the whole assembly is easy to take apart and interchange components. This allows you to tailor the snowshoes to the person and activity, or change components in the field to adapt to changing snow conditions, potentially eliminating the need for a second or third pair of snowshoes. You can also upgrade to new components as they become available. Dion currently offers five frames, two bindings, and two cleats that are all interchangeable.

The basic binding uses two 1-inch wide webbing straps over the toe area and instep and one around the heel. The webbing is doubled through ladder-lock buckles so it works like a pulley system to tighten the straps. This system basically works fine, but I found it cumbersome for both tightening and loosening, and difficult to do with gloves on. I also had some problems with the heel strap loosening up. The nylon webbing stretches when wet, and required some re-tightening on the trail. It also freezes up in cold weather, making the bindings more difficult to loosen at the end of the day. . The heel strap on the size large binding was too short for tightening around my size 11.5 boots, although it is claimed to fit boots up to size 14. Based on my experience, I would recommend looking into the Dion Quick-Fit binding, which is claimed to be easy on/off and easily adjusted.

The Standard Flex Cleat on the snowshoes tested has an extra toe crampon attached with a flexible band, so it gets a better bite when you pivot your foot and push off. This feature improves the Model 168’s climbing and running abilities, but the crampons are short (1 inch or less) on the Standard Flex Cleat, making this configuration more suited for tracking or climbing on firm snow than in soft snow. A Deep Flex Cleat with longer teeth is now available that should provide good performance in soft snow. The crampons on the tested snowshoes are 7075 aluminum alloy and are very sharp and durable. All of the crampons are Teflon-coated to minimize icing.

I used the Dion 168’s weekly over a four-month period in all types of snow conditions. I found them to give a solid performance on most snow conditions, although they generally did better on firm snow compared to soft snow. They cruised along fine on gentle terrain and climbed steep hills well on firmer snow, but had noticeably less floatation and traction on soft snow, and broke loose more readily on steep downhills and sidehills. Dion snowshoes have 39% of their surface area in the curved front section (look for our measurements and graph in the upcoming review summary), leaving less surface area (61%) for flotation in the rear flat section. This issue can be overcome to a large extent by choosing a longer frame and the Dion Deep Flex Cleat to get more floatation and bite in soft snow. However, with only a minimal heel crampon these longer snowshoes are less stable on sidehills.

One annoyance I found with the Dion snowshoes is the tails flip snow onto your backside when you lift them up (the stiffer pivot strap slaps the snowshoe against the bottom of your heel, flipping snow up). The flipping was especially noticeable in my running test. The flexible toe crampons also tended to catch in crusty snow as I lifted them up, akin to stubbing my toe.

Overall, the Dion Model 168 tested is more at home on firm snow than on soft snow (although a Dion snowshoe can be customized with a longer frame and crampons for soft snow conditions). It has a stiffer pivot strap, which causes the tails to snap back quickly, which flips snow on your backside in soft snow conditions. However, that is not a problem on firm snow, and is a good feature for fitness running and hill climbing.

What’s Unique

The Dion line of snowshoes is modular, so you can choose your frame, binding, and cleat. This allows you to customize them for the person, activity, and snow conditions, which is especially nice if you are a fitness runner or racer. The Flex Cleat is also a nice feature for racing because it provides extra bite when you pivot your foot forward and push off.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Model 168, at 3.3 pounds, is lighter than several of the snowshoes we tested, but it is not lightweight. I would like to see at least one model in the Dion lineup that is designed for lightweight snowshoeing.

Also, I found the nylon webbing straps on the binding tested to be “old technology,” and would like to see straps and a tightening system that are more user friendly.

Introduction

The Jetboil integrated canister stove represents a major technological advance, giving Jetboil a firm foothold in the canister stove market. Now Jetboil is introducing accessories that make the Jetboil Personal Cooking System (PCS) even more versatile. For Jetboil users who take their camp coffee seriously, the new Jetboil French Press delivers freshly brewed java with a nominal increase in carry weight. And for group cooking, the new Jetboil Companion Cup provides a strategy to save a little weight by letting one burner do double (or triple) duty. I evaluated the logistics and efficacy of these new gadgets, and report my findings in this review.

What’s Good

• French Press is lightweight and makes great fresh-brewed coffee
• Companion Cup saves time and weight by sharing a burner

What’s Not So Good

• Cup readily boils over (making a mess) if filled with over 2 cups of liquid
• Coffee grounds are messy to clean up
• Proper disposal of coffee grounds in the backcountry requires a special effort

Specifications

	Jetboil French Press	Jetboil Companion Cup
Model year	2005	2005
Weight oz (g)	Lid 1.2 (35) Press 0.8 (22) Total 2.0 (58)	Lid 1.1 (30) Cup 6.7 (191) Measuring/drinking cup 1.0 (27) Total 8.8 (248)
MSRP	$19.95	$29.95

Performance

In our first look and review of the Jetboil Personal Cooking System we were delighted with its integrated design, wind resistance, and low fuel consumption. I found the Jetboil French Press to be lightweight, increasing the carry weight only 0.8 ounces if you substitute the press’ special cap for the original one. Basically the process is: boil water, turn off stove, add coffee, wait a few minutes, push the press down, enjoy your freshly-brewed coffee. It’s very tempting to fill the Jetboil cup above the 2-cup fill mark in order to brew a bigger batch of coffee. If you do, be advised that it will readily boil over, so you have to watch it carefully. (Note: overheating the fuel canister with boiling liquid is a potentially dangerous situation!) With repeated use I found that the French Press loosened up some, resulting in some coffee grounds in the bottom of my cup.

I know it is hard to tell this to a coffee fanatic, but you pay a price for that special cup of joe. Cleaning up the Press and Cup requires some extra effort, and don’t you dare rinse it out in a nearby stream or lake! The proper Leave No Trace technique is to dig a 4-6 inch deep hole and bury the grounds, or pack them out.

With a Companion Cup or two, cooking is a continuous process with one burner, which saves time and the weight of one burner (6.1 ounces). I found it convenient and relaxing to share a beverage with my spouse (using the cup that attaches to the bottom of the stove), while our dinner or breakfast cooked in the Companion Cup. We use the “boil and set” cooking method, where we boil water (usually about 2-3 cups), add our dehydrated food, bring it back to boiling (watching carefully so it doesn’t spill over), then turn off the stove and let it set for 10 minutes. This system works great with the Jetboil. The cup barely has enough capacity to hold dinner for two, but plenty of capacity for one. This approach utilizes the full capacity of the Jetboil cup without a spillover.

The Jetboil burner (along with a 4-ounce fuel canister) can be stowed in one cup, while the French Press can be stowed in the Companion Cup. A 4-ounce fuel canister fits inside the Jetboil cup, but the larger 8-ounce canister does not. The plastic measuring/drinking cup is difficult to remove from the bottom of the Jetboil pot, so you can save a little grief and weight (1 ounce) by leaving it at home if it is not needed.

Overall, the Companion Cup strategy works. You can share coffee from the Jetboil cup while your oatmeal is cooking in a Companion Cup. Then you can brew another cup of joe when the oatmeal comes off, etc.

Using a Companion Cup with the Jetboil PCS lets you easily cook for two or more people and reduces the weight per person to 10.8 ounces. The extra weight of the French Press (0.8 ounces) is also more justified when it is used for two or more people.

What’s Unique

First, accolades to Jetboil for developing the first integrated canister fuel cooking system. The Jetboil PCS raises the bar for wind resistance and fuel efficiency that traditional canister fuel burners cannot match. These new accessories help expand the utility of the Jetboil PCS.

Recommendations for Improvement

While we praise the Jetboil’s integration, wind resistance, and fuel efficiency, we also note that the system is heavy at 14.9 ounces, compared to a conventional burner and cook pot. One of the major limitations of the Jetboil PCS is its 1-pint safe fill capacity, which basically makes it a solo cooking system. Why not offer another Companion Cup with twice the capacity, so the Jetboil can cook for either one or two people? That would really increase its utility – take the smaller cup to cook for one, take the larger cup (or both) to cook for two, or take multiple larger cups to cook for a group.

Introduction

The Crescent Moon Gold Series 12 snowshoes are svelte trail runners with a radically tapered frame that allow a natural running gait. The 12’s have a smaller diameter tubing (5/8 inch) frame, lightweight bindings, aluminum alloy crampons, and clear Surlyn decking to lighten the weight (3.2 pounds per pair). While there are lighter weight offerings, performance features abound on the Gold Series 12. The question is, do the added features offset the weight?

What’s Good

• The wide front and narrow tails concentrate weight close to the foot, yielding a lighter feel than snowshoes of similar weight
• Tapered shape allows a very natural running gait and makes it difficult to trip over one’s feet
• Toe cleat makes it possible to sprint with excellent traction through a full foot roll
• TIG welded aluminum frame is very stiff
• Binding is light and flexible, and conforms well to lightweight running shoes

What’s Not So Good

• Surlyn decking material is not as abrasion resistant as Hypalon
• Aluminum crampons wear faster than steel or titanium
• Rough looking pop rivet work on crampons (though worked flawlessly during testing)

Specifications

Manufacturer	Crescent Moon
Year/Model	2004-2005 Gold Series 12
Dimensions	8 in wide x 24 in long (20 cm x 61 cm)
Surface area	154 in2 (994 cm2)
Frame	TIG welded 6063 aluminum alloy tubing, 5/8 in (16 mm) diameter, powder coated in gold metal flake
Deck	Translucent Surlyn (tested), Surlyn combined with TGS in 05-06 model
Binding	Foot-glove binding with two front straps and one heel strap, micro-adjustable with cam-lock buckles
Crampons	1/8 in (3.2 mm) thick hardened aluminum at toe, ball, and heel of the foot
Weight	Measured weight 3.2 lb (1.4 kg) per pair; manufacturer specification 2.9 lb (1.3 kg)
Load rating	Not rated
MSRP	$199

Performance

I have not once tripped myself while wearing the Crescent Moon Gold Series 12 snowshoes. The narrow tail of these radically tapered frames allow a near natural running gait. The Gold Series 12s are crafted from a single piece of 5/8 inch tubular 6063 aluminum, TIG welded at the point in the back. The frames are finished with a very thick and durable powder coat.

Crescent Moon will use a combination of TGS (The Good Stuff) and Surlyn in their Gold Series 12 for the 2005-2006 winter season (the review sample from the 2004-2005 season used Surlyn throughout). TGS decking, used for the back half of the new Gold Series 12 has a polyester scrim core coated in a blend of PVC and neoprene. TGS is claimed to withstand abrasion and tears better than Hypalon and is flexible down to minus 70 °F. The TGS decking I tested while reviewing Crescent Moon’s Gold Series 9 performed flawlessly during late season hikes that included stretches of bare rock and ground.

The Gold Series 12 tested were decked entirely with Surlyn material, which in the future will only be used for the transparent front deck. DuPont Surlyn seems an ideal material for racing snowshoes. It is a tough material in cold environments, not as abrasion resistant as Hypalon, but LIGHTER. The Surlyn decking shows more wear and tear after a season of use than the TGS decking under similar treatment. From a durability point of view, the switch to half TGS, half Surlyn decking might make sense. However, I would prefer Crescent Moon keep the full Surlyn decking on the Gold Series 12 to focus on performance rather than durability on these competitive race shoes.

Sixteen rivets hold the decking onto the frame. Some of the rivet work looks crude, but this is only a cosmetic concern. The decking and binding rivets held tight through fairly abusive treatment, like late season running over patches of bare ground.

The Gold Series 12s are complimented with great anatomical bindings. The bindings are very light and conform well to lightweight running shoes. They also adjust to fit insulated pack boots if you prefer them. The binding wraps over the front of your shoes to create a toe box that prevents your feet from slipping forward and ensure repeatable foot placement. Three cam-lock buckles allow incremental adjustment to dial in the fit; two over the top of your shoe and one around the heel. Crescent Moon uses Hypalon for the binding straps for its non-absorbent, cold tolerant, and durability properties.

Three sets of 1/8 inch thick aluminum alloy crampons provide traction on the Gold Series 12. While the back two crampons are well designed for hard pack or powder, the standout is the front toe crampons. These allow you to dig in at the end of your running stride and kick off with traction. The traction would be very good without the toe cleat. With it, the traction is outstanding for a running snowshoe. The aluminum used for the crampons is softer than most types of rock, and as such tends to wear quickly.

The Crescent Moon Gold Series 12 snowshoes use a strap style pivot that does not allow the snowshoes to drag with each step, an important feature for any running snowshoe. This style of strap also makes negotiating rough terrain easier. The downside to this is the amount of snow these snowshoes throw over one’s backside. In deeper, softer snow, the Gold Series 12s warrant the use of waterproof or highly water resistant shell pants; not always the best thing to wear on a highly aerobic run.

Obviously, the smaller surface area limits these snowshoes to harder snow. These are a poor choice for breaking trail in soft powder, but do well hiking backcountry ski trails on firmer snow. The 12s are great climbers; the toe cleat really adds a lot to climbing traction. Descents can be good too if conditions are right. The very narrow back section causes the back of the snowshoes to sink more into the snow on descents, leveling out the foot.

The Gold Series 12s are average performers on side-hills. They are narrow enough in the back that the heel crampon really digs in without the frame getting in the way. However, in hard snow the width at the front can make it difficult to walk with your feet level and straight. Slightly soft snow remedies the problem by allowing the front of the snowshoes to dig into the slope. If only we had that much control over our snow conditions.

What’s Unique

Designed for runners with a narrow running gait, the Gold Series 12 has a radically tapered shape and additional aluminum toe crampons to aid in climbs and sprints.

Recommendations for Improvement

There are lighter offerings in the running snowshoe market, and the Gold Series 12 could be more competitive at a lighter weight. To do this, and retain the great performance features, Crescent Moon might look into using a thinner frame material (like 7000 series aluminum). Other components such as the decking, aluminum crampons, and bindings have sacrificed long-term durability for lighter weight, so why not reduce the frame’s weight to match the durability of the other components? The current frame will almost certainly outlast all other components.

Thin titanium crampons would retain sharp points longer than aluminum in thin snow conditions. The weight difference would be negligible. Cost would be more. However, “titanium” is a familiar material to competitive racers, who are willing to pay more for that additional edge.

Introduction

The Tubbs Catalyst is marketed as a racing snowshoe. We were intrigued by its innovative design and lightweight materials, and tested it as a lightweight multi-purpose snowshoe.

What’s Good

• Solidly built and very durable
• Titanium crampons (all very sharp!)
• Anodized 7000 series aluminum frame
• Asymmetrical shape to minimize tripping
• Lightweight binding with fixed toe to fit running or cross training shoes
• Toe crampons provide a good grip for racing, and climb well too
• Perform very well on packed snow

What’s not so Good

• Heavier than expected for a racing snowshoe
• Not versatile enough for backcountry use

Specifications

Manufacturer	Tubbs Snowshoes
Year/Model	2004-05 Catalyst
Dimensions	8 in wide x 25 in long (20 cm x 64 cm)
Surface area	Measured surface area 158 in2 (1019 cm2), manufacturer specification 146 in2 (942 cm2)
Frame	7000 series aluminum alloy, 5/8 in (16 mm) diameter tubing
Deck	Proprietary ArcTec fabric and Hypalon
Binding	Adjustable toe yoke securely fits running/cross training shoes, two front straps plus one heel strap with quick release buckles
Crampons	Titanium, two independent toe crampons, two heel crampons
Weight	Measured weight 3.1 lb (1.4 kg); manufacturer specification 2.9 pounds (1.3 kg)
Load rating	All weights
MSRP	$249

Performance

I tested the Tubbs Catalyst snowshoes on numerous trips in the Southern Rockies to catch different snow conditions and terrains. My testing ran through the month of May on an unusually heavy snowpack. Mid winter testing was on all sorts of conditions, but late winter testing was on firm snow in the morning and mushy snow in the afternoon.

The Catalyst is designed for racing on packed snow conditions. The first feature that jumps out is their asymmetric shape, designed to accommodate a runner’s stride and minimize crossover, especially when fatigued. On the Catalyst, the snowshoes are left and right foot specific, not the bindings. The next feature that catches the eye is that the deck is attached to the bottom of the frame rather than the top. This design is again specific for packed snow, to improve gliding over the surface.

After four months of testing, I concluded that the Catalyst snowshoes are clearly in their “element” on packed trails, and do not perform particularly well in highly variable backcountry conditions. On soft snow they are laborious to use, lacking floatation and control. On late winter consolidated snow, they got along fine in the morning when the snow was firm, but in mushy afternoon snow ice balls developed under my heels to the extent that I could scarcely go 50 feet without having to stop and remove the clod.

The Catalyst bindings are specialized in that they have a toe yoke to position the foot over a pair of independent toe crampons to push off on while running. The bindings are made of numerous lightweight materials, are fairly easy to attach to boots or trail running shoes, align the feet well, and hold their adjustment. The bindings adjust well to fit different sized feet.

On uphills the Catalysts handled 45 degree slopes with little loss of traction (those toe crampons really grip). On downhills anything steeper then 30 degrees was a controlled slide because of unweighting of the toe crampons as the slope angle increased. The Catalysts have two smaller lateral crampons in the center of the shoe that are minimal in size but very sharp, providing average sidehill performance.

Articulation is controlled by a stiff pivot strap that provides a solid connection between boot and snowshoe. In my running tests the bindings enabled a solid grip and a steady stride with no toe or heel drag.

While I am impressed with the Catalyst’s high tech materials and design innovations, I feel that they are just too specialized for general backcountry use. They perform well on firm snow and climb surprisingly well, but they flounder in soft snow and do not readily handle diverse conditions.

What’s Unique

In the Catalyst, Tubbs really makes a strong effort to innovate. The binding positions and aligns the foot perfectly, and puts two crampons under each toe for extra bite when pushing off.

Recommendations for Improvement

It would be nice if Tubbs incorporated some of the features of the Catalyst into a really lightweight ascent shoe for backcountry skiers and snowboarders. A lightweight version of the Catalyst (the Alpinist?) adapted for climbing up to high alpine basins and ridges in soft and variable snow conditions could be just the ticket – snowshoe up, ski down.

Introduction

One look at the MSR Lightning Ascent snowshoes and it’s obvious that these shoes are designed for traction. Instead of adapting the tubular frame design that typifies the snowshoe industry, MSR developed a revolutionary new frame using bar stock aluminum, with crampon teeth cut into the frame. At 3.6 pounds for the pair, the Lightning Ascents are heavier than some other snowshoes, but their performance features may well justify the weight.

What’s Good

• Traction never before seen in a snowshoe
• Urethane decking attaches to frame with metal clips, rather than wrapping around the frame, and is therefore better protected from abrasion
• Televator heel lifts make climbing more comfortable and spreads weight over entire traction surface
• Design prevents ice build up
• Step-on binding is quick, simple, and versatile

What’s not so Good

• Paint finish chips easily and in large pieces
• Perimeter traction teeth in the aluminum frame wear down easily (though the steel teeth on the crampons and cross braces are unscathed)
• The binding does not maintain heel alignment

Specifications

Manufacturer	MSR
Year/Model	2004-2005 Lightning Ascent
Dimensions	8 in wide x 25 in long (20 cm x 64 cm)
Surface area	Measured surface area 176 in2 (1135 cm2)
Frame	Aerospace grade vertical aluminum bar stock, approximately 1 inch high and 3/32 inch thick
Deck	Propriety urethane with a mesh fiber core
Binding	Molded clear urethane, with molded gray and black straps, secured with steel, speed hook buckles
Crampons	Aerospace grade aluminum around the perimeter, painted carbon steel on the cross braces and pivot crampon
Weight	Measured weight 3.6 lb (1.6 kg) per pair; manufacturer specification 3.6 lb (1.6 kg)
Load rating	125 lb (57 kg) to 225 lb (102 kg), depending on conditions
MSRP	$250

Performance

The MSR Lightning Ascent snowshoes have one of the most innovative designs ever seen in a technical snowshoe. Unlike the industry standard tubular aluminum frames, MSR uses a “vertical blade” aluminum frame reinforced by vertical steel cross braces, all of which are adorned with traction teeth underneath. There is also a pivoting foot crampon that drives deep into the snow while you walk. I tested the MSR Total-Traction frame in a variety of snow conditions and terrain and found it offers much better traction than the industry norm, particularly in harder snow – though it does not replace conventional crampons in icy terrain. The frame flexes much more than even the flimsiest tubular framed shoes. Rather than this being a negative point, I found the frame flex enhanced traction in most circumstances by conforming better to uneven ground.

Aptly named, the Lightning Ascents excel at climbing steeper slopes. If the snow conditions are optimal (firm, but not too hard), climbing slopes of 45+ degrees is possible. The Televator heel lift relieves the calves from climbing strain. They also distribute your weight over the entire snowshoe frame (think traction) rather than solely over the foot crampons. With the heel lifts engaged, and weight distributed over the entire frame, there is a real sense of stability when climbing steeper terrain. The Televators have a nice engagement/disengagement too, with a positive click into the two positions. With practice, trekking poles can be used to move them into position.

The Lightning Ascents are great descenders if you want maximum grip, and average descenders if you like to glissade down. Glissading is a fun, quicker means of negotiating a route back down that requires a break in traction followed by a controlled slide with each step. With the Lightning Ascents it is very difficult to break traction. The controlled slides are short with a lot of drag and snow flying. The positive side to this is a much more controlled descent when safety is a concern or when carrying a backpack.

Despite being shaped reasonably well to promote sufficient float, the Lightning Ascents are not great performers in deeper snow; they simply lack the surface area. Traction tends to weaken in softer snow too, though they still perform better than average in this regard.

The propriety urethane deck doesn’t wrap the aluminum frame, but is riveted to 20 aluminum clips that are inserted through the frame. This eliminates a common weak point of tubular aluminum frames; the decking material is much better protected from rock abrasions. The crampon-like frame, however, is quick to shed its paint, occasionally in large chips, when put in contact with rock, bare ground, or the opposite snowshoe. Some will be disappointed with the appearance of these snowshoes after a single trip. In contrast, most tubular frame snowshoes have a powder coated or anodized finish that will take much more abuse before looking as well used. After six months of heavy use, the loss of paint from the Lightning Ascents is significant, but only a cosmetic concern.

There are other wear issues with regard to the frame. The crampon teeth on the perimeter frame are beginning to round off after one season of use. MSR should consider using higher grade 7000 series aluminum for this application. The carbon steel cross braces and binding crampons do not share the same fate. Except for chipped paint, they remain relatively unscathed.

The step-in binding is one of the easiest snowshoe bindings to get into we’ve seen and fits anything from running shoes to thickly insulated snow boots. As the name implies, you step onto the binding rather than feed your foot into it. After placing your heel against a fixed, but adjustable, heel strap, pull the two top straps over your boot and slip them into the side of the speed-hook buckles. Pull tight and lock the appropriate adjusting hole onto the pin of the buckle. This is all done in one motion, and can be done wearing the thickest gloves or with cold fingers. The strap ends are kept under control by feeding them into the small black strap keepers. The strap keepers on the test sample Ascents were installed with the openings pointing up. This caused the straps to slip out when snow or brush pushed against the straps. I found removing the strap keepers and reinstalling them with the strap opening pointing down prevented this from happening.

My heels have a tendency to shift towards the inner edges of the Lightning Ascents. The effect on performance is subtle. As I straighten my feet, the snowshoe tips rotate inwards making it easier to step on top of the leading shoe when taking a step. After tripping myself a few times, I eventually learned to adjust my gait to compensate. Such compensation should be unnecessary, and likely has an affect on performance and fatigue. Since a few of my friends who own these snowshoes have the same complaint, I conclude that the problem lies in the snowshoes’ bindings.

The Lightning Ascent binding uses a fixed hinge pivot system with a stop to prevent the snowshoe from rotating to vertical and dragging over obstacles. The stop still allows the snowshoe to rotate more than one with a pivot strap, so the snowshoes do drag when hiking. Although the shoes maneuver well over obstacles, they will trip you when trying to walk backwards. This system works well enough, but the metal-on-metal pivot parts rattle and squeak more than strap-style pivots. The clevis pins used for the pivots have been known to fail on other MSR snowshoe models, although I had no problems with the Lightning Ascent clevis pins through one season of use.

I have a pair of older snowshoes that are notorious for packing snow on the heel plate. Without stopping to chip the snow off, the heel plate becomes a “Televator” of sorts, a real problem when I’m trying to go downhill. Snow can also pack onto the bare aluminum surfaces of crampons or to the sides of an aluminum frame. Throughout my testing I never experienced snow sticking to the MSR Lightning Ascents. Ice that might normally build up on other snowshoes tends to break up on the frame’s vertical blades.

MSR claims the Lightning Ascent is the lightest snowshoe in its class at 3.6 pounds. With similar sized snowshoes like the Northern Lites Elite weighing 2 pounds 3 ounces, one must wonder exactly what class MSR is referring to. The Northern Lites Elite does not have nearly the traction of the MSR Lightning Ascent, so perhaps the Ascents are in a class all to themselves. Considering the traction, Televators, step-on bindings, and durability of materials throughout, 3.6 pounds is very respectable for the level of performance these shoes achieve.

What’s Unique

The traction! MSR designed traction into the entire frame creating a snowshoe that out performs all others in steep and technical terrain.

Recommendations for Improvement

Although the Lightning Ascent’s weight is very respectable for the level of performance they achieve, MSR could reduce the weight further by replacing steel components with titanium and using a thinner decking material. But at an already high price of $250, I don’t envision this happening any time soon.

A more practical improvement would be to apply a more durable paint finish. One or two trips are all it takes to give the present finish a well used look.

The phenomenon of the heels rotating inwards is a problem that needs to be addressed. MSR should consider making anatomical left and right specific bindings that align the feet to the snowshoes.

Introduction

New for 2005, the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail pack offers a simple, durable option for SuperUltraLight (SUL) backpacking. The Alpine Trail is available in two versions – the Alpine Trail 6 oz. and Alpine Trail 7 oz. If you are interested in a no-frills SUL backpack that is durable, the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail deserves your attention.

What’s Good

• Much more durable than silnylon or spinnaker SUL packs
• Choice of lighter weight (6 oz) or more durable (7 oz) versions
• Right sized for SUL
• Outside pockets are low on the pack for lower center of gravity
• Narrow, simple, streamlined design
• Flawless construction

What’s Not So Good

• No top or side compression straps make it impossible to compress small loads
• Shoulder straps are too narrow
• Edges of shoulder straps have seams that can rub bare skin
• Non roll-top closure doesn’t seal well
• No provision for attaching gear to the outside

Specifications

Manufacturer	Fanatic Fringe
Year/Model	2005 Alpine Trail
Style	Frameless, top loading, drawcord closure
Volume	2400 ci (39.3 L) all sizes
Weight Size L tested.	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is 5.9 oz (168 g) measured weight, manufacturer’s specification 6 oz (170 g); Alpine Trail 7 oz. is 7.0 oz (198 g) measured weight, manufacturer’s specification 7 oz (198 g)
Fabrics	Main body (both packs) is coated 1.9 oz/yd2 nylon ripstop with coated 200d nylon oxford back and bottom; Alpine Trail 6 oz. has no-see-um mesh outer pockets and silnylon top closure; Alpine Trail 7 oz. has nylon mesh outer pockets and coated 1.9 oz/yd2 nylon ripstop top closure
Features	Three outside mesh pockets, padded shoulder straps, top drawcord, haul loop
Volume To Weight Ratio	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is 407 ci/oz; Alpine Trail 7 oz. is 343 ci/oz
Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity	12 lb (5.5 kg) estimated maximum comfortable load an average person can carry all day in this pack
Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is 32.5; Alpine Trail 7 oz. is 27.4
MSRP	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is $89; Alpine Trail 7 oz. is $99

Performance

Three Backpacking Light editors tested the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs on SuperUltraLight trips in different regions of the US. Our impressions are combined in this review.

The Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs are a simple design. They are both the same size and have identical features. They are simple narrow pack bags with shoulder straps and no hipbelt. They are constructed of coated 1.9 oz/yd² nylon ripstop on the pack bag with coated 200 denier nylon oxford on the backpanel and bottom for extra durability and waterproofness. The difference between the two versions is in the fabrics used in other places. The 7 oz. version uses 200 denier nylon oxford on the top closure and nylon mesh on the outer pockets; the 6 oz. backpack uses silnylon in the top closure and no-see-um netting in the outer pockets. We had no durability or wear issues with either model. In fact, both are SUL pack options that are more durable than silnylon packs and far more durable than spinnaker packs such as the Gossamer Gear Whisper Uberlight (3.7 ounces) or Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet 25 (4.4 ounces).

Where the Alpine Trail packs save weight is in their simplicity. They consist of a pack bag, padded shoulder straps, three outer pockets, a haul loop, and a drawstring closure – just a simple, tough, well-designed bag.

However, there is some utility lost in what isn’t in these packs. These are frameless packs, depending on a “virtual frame” to create pack stiffness. A virtual frame can be created by putting a pad inside the pack, either rolled or flat against the back, and by compressing the load (or filling the pack). This makes a solid pack. However, the Fanatic Fringe packs do not have a top strap or any type of compression system to adjust for smaller loads. This makes it very difficult to achieve a virtual frame when the pack is under filled. Further, not having any compression straps means that you don’t have any places to carry a pad, poles, or other items besides the low outside pockets.

The outside pockets are very well designed. There is plenty of room in the side pockets for larger Platypus bottles and the pockets are low on the pack, improving the center of gravity. Having side pockets is a serious bonus on a pack this light.

The Alpine Trail packs have well-constructed, padded shoulder straps. They have Cordura nylon on the outside and a softer mesh on the inside that is very comfortable against the skin. However, there is a hard seam where these two fabrics attach that occasionally rubs bare skin. The narrow straps were fine for loads below about 12 pounds, but became uncomfortable for loads above that. For SUL trips, where total pack weight rarely goes over 12 pounds, the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs were quite comfortable.

At $89 for the Alpine Trail 7 oz. and $99 for the Alpine Trail 6 oz., the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs are an excellent value. Both versions are strongly constructed of durable fabrics and will definitely outlast comparable spinnaker or silnylon packs.

What’s Unique

The Alpine Trail packs weigh 1-3 ounces more than comparable spinnaker fabric packs, but they are much more durable. If you’re looking for a simple, durable, no-frills SUL pack, the Alpine Trail is a good choice.

Recommendations for Improvement

The simplicity of the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail is one of its selling points. However, it needs certain essential features to make it more functional. The first is adding a top strap so the top can be rolled down to help compress the pack when carrying small loads and to better seal the top. It also needs a side compression system, like loops for a bungee system that could be used for adjusting pack volume and attaching gear to the outside. Finally, the shoulder straps are too narrow and the side seams on the straps are abrasive. Slightly wider straps with smoother edges would be more comfortable and distribute weight more evenly.

Overview

What do you do with that box full of partially full fuel canisters for your backpacking canister stove? A canister lantern might be a good way to finish them off on family camping trips. Brunton has introduced what they claim is the world’s first mantleless camping lantern. It is also globe-less, and is claimed to be windproof. To evaluate the utility of this new technology, I lab and field tested the Brunton Liberty mantleless canister lantern with the Markill Peak Illuminator (Markill is a subsidiary of Vaude), which is a conventional mantle lantern with a glass globe. Although the technology has promise, at this point the Liberty simply does not measure up to the Peak Illuminator in terms of quantity and quality of light or fuel efficiency. Despite the potential breakage problems with mantles and globes in canister lanterns, the "old" technology continues to be the best technology, at least for now.

Note: A mantle is a cloth mesh which, when burned, leaves a chemical ash matrix which, when heated, produces a bright incandescent light. Mantles are tough enough for car camping, but too fragile for backpacking or any other rough use.

What’s Good

• Both lanterns come with piezo-electric ignition
• Fuel consumption is not affected by wind
• The Liberty is more durable, with no mantle or globe to break
• The Peak Illuminator puts out lots of bright, white light and is non-directional
• The Peak Illuminator will run about 20% longer than the Liberty on an 8-ounce fuel canister
• The Peak Illuminator is silent

What’s Not So Good

• The Liberty’s light is yellow/orange, dim, and directional
• The Liberty uses significantly more fuel
• The Liberty is sensitive to cool temperatures
• The Liberty is somewhat noisy
• The Peak Illuminator flickers, especially in the wind
• The Peak Illuminator’s mantle and globe can break

Specifications

	Brunton Liberty	Vaude/ Markill Peak Illuminator
Measurements	4 x 2.5 x 1.3 in (10 x 6 x 3 cm)	4.3 x 2.4 x 2.4 in (11 x 6 x 6 cm)
Weight with case	9.4 oz (266 g)	7.2 oz (204 g)
Piezo-electric Ignition	standard	standard
Light output (manufacturer specification)	80 W	80 W
MSRP (USD)	$115	~$60

Performance

I measured fuel consumption of both lanterns by weighing them (with fuel canister) before and after 15 minutes of use. The difference in weight was the amount of fuel consumed. Tests were done under calm and windy (12 mph wind from a box fan) conditions. Each test was repeated three times and the results averaged. In the field I used both lanterns to provide light for camp chores and reading. I tested each with full and partially full canisters, and used different brands of fuel.

Overall, I found that the Markill Peak Illuminator "outshined" the Brunton Liberty. The Peak Illuminator puts out more light, has better light quality (white versus yellow/orange), is virtually silent, and is more fuel efficient than the Liberty. Data are presented in Table 1, and the main findings are summarized below.

• Under warm conditions the Peak Illuminator will run about 8.2 hours on an 8-ounce canister of fuel, versus 6.5 hours for the Liberty.
• Fuel consumption in warm/windy conditions was very similar to calm conditions.
• Under cool conditions both lanterns used less fuel (because a lower rate of fuel vaporization at cooler temperatures is equivalent to a low (conservative) valve setting), and fuel consumption was similar. Both lanterns should provide about 11.4 hours of light from an 8-ounce canister under cool conditions.
• The Peak Illuminator produced substantially more light than the Liberty, and light quality was much better (bright white for the Peak Illuminator and dim yellow/orange for the Liberty, see photo below).
• The Liberty is highly directional (the flip out reflectors direct light in one direction only), while the Peak Illuminator puts out a full circle of light. Under cool and cold conditions the Liberty had low light output, while the Peak Illuminator was affected very little.
• The Peak Illuminator had a slight flicker under warm conditions, a moderate flicker under cold conditions, and it flickered a lot under windy conditions.
• The Peak Illuminator provided good light for camp chores or reading most of the time (except in the wind), but the Liberty provided marginally adequate light only in warm conditions.
• The Liberty has a moderate roar (similar to a canister stove), but the Peak Illuminator is silent. At warm temperatures, I could not detect any performance differences due to different brands of fuel or a partially full canister (as compared to performance with a full canister).

From my tests, I could find very little to recommend the Liberty canister lantern. I commend Brunton on their effort to bring new technology to market, but based on the performance of our test sample, the mantleless lantern is not yet competitive with existing technology.

What’s Unique

The Brunton Liberty lantern features a platinum element (a mesh dome) that heats up to high temperatures when an air valve is opened to provide more oxygen. At elevated temperatures, more light is emitted, which is enhanced and directed by a reflector wing on each side of the flame. The problem with the Liberty at cooler temperatures seems to be that the platinum element does not get hot enough, so the light produced is dim and yellow.

Recommendations for Improvement

At Backpacking Light we really love new innovations in outdoor gear, and we are supportive of the concept of a mantleless lantern. Specific improvements we would like to see in the Brunton Liberty mantleless lantern are:

• Provide more and better quality light
• Less sensitive to cool temperatures
• Lighter weight. At 9.4 ounces (without the carry case), the lantern is simply too heavy for lightweight backpacking.

Introduction

Kovea is a South Korean stove manufacturer that simultaneously sells under its own brand name and wholesales to other companies. Thus, you are likely to see their stoves with a variety of brand names. The X2 is a little heaver and bulkier than other canister stoves we reviewed, but it is solidly built, has piezo-electric ignition, and is inexpensive.

What’s Good

• Sturdy steel construction
• Standard piezo-electric ignition
• Precise flame control
• Inexpensive

What’s Not So Good

• At 5.7 ounces the X2 is heavy compared to mini-canister stoves
• Does not collapse to a small carrying size

Specifications

Manufacturer	Kovea (South Korea)
Stove	X2 top-mount canister stove
Weight	5.7 oz (162 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 5.7 oz (163 g)
Size	40.6 in x 40.6 in x 37.4 in (103 x 103 x 95 cm); does not collapse
Materials	Steel
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, hard plastic carry case
Heat Output	9,000 BTU/hr
MSRP	27,000 South KoreanWon (approximately $27 US)

Performance

If you live in or travel to a country where the Kovea X2 is available, it is worth considering because of its good performance and value. It is solidly built and comes with a piezo-electric igniter that works well. Its main drawbacks are its heavier weight and bulkiness (however, its size and weight are about the same as the Jetboil burner). If these factors are not a problem for your style of backpacking or car camping, then the X2 may serve your needs very well.

The X2 has four pot supports in a 3.25-inch square pattern that are anchored to a steel heat reflector. Contact with the bottom of a cook pot is mostly at the outside of the pot supports. I found this design to be stable for small to medium sized cook pots with a smooth bottom, but it may be tipsy with some pots with indentations on the bottom.. A fry pan had to be balanced off-center or hand held to stay in place.

The Kovea X2 piezo-electric igniter worked fine in warmer temperatures as well as in cold temperatures. It looks like the same igniter as on the Kovea Camp 3 (reviewed separately), but for some reason this one works better. Flame control is precise with no readjustment required. The flame easily adjusts from a fine simmer to full throttle in a little less than one-half turn of the controller.

As explained in Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves, the Kovea X2’s heating efficiency is impaired by “flame lift.” At full throttle the flames lift above the burner, making the stove very sensitive to wind, even with a windscreen. This situation results in less efficient combustion and heat transfer to a cookpot. The Kovea X2 shares the same burner design as the Kovea Camp 3 stove and its twin the Markill Peak Ignition, and all have the same problem.

Fortunately, for cooking control and fuel efficiency reasons, it is desirable to use a canister stove at less than full throttle. Using a low or moderate flame level, the X2 is a good cooker. With its precise flame control, the X2 easily cooked an omelet and fried pancakes in a fry pan, and sautéed onions and green peppers in a titanium cook pot. The stove’s smaller burner does create a hot spot in the center of a pot or pan (as is typical for most small burner canister stoves), so it’s important to use a low flame level to avoid burning.

The heating efficiency of the Kovea X2 is summarized in Table 1, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested to date. For more detailed information see Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Overall, the X2 is slower to boil water, is more sensitive to wind, and is slightly more fuel-efficient than average. Since the majority of these tests were performed using a full throttle setting, I believe the X2’s reduced performance is due to its “flame lift” issue, and average performance can be expected using a moderate flame level. These test results are quite similar to the Markill Peak Ignition and Kovea Camp 3, which have the same burner design.

What’s Unique

The X2 is solidly built, performs well at less than full throttle, and is inexpensive.

Recommendations for Improvement

Re-engineer the burner to eliminate the flame lift problem and make the stove less sensitive to wind.

Introduction

New for 2005, the Brunton Raptor incorporates some great features into a $40 canister stove. While other base level canister stoves don’t have any extras, the Raptor includes piezo-electric ignition, 6-inch wide pot supports, and stainless steel construction. This review details the results of my tests of the Raptor in the lab and in the field.

What’s Good

• Standard piezo-electric electric ignition
• Wide pot supports make it particularly suitable for large pots and group cooking
• Stainless steel construction
• Precise flame control
• A great value for $40

What’s Not So Good

• At 5.7 ounces the Raptor is heavy compared to mini-canister stoves
• Very sensitive to wind, needs wind protection
• Small burner creates a hot spot in the middle of a cookpot

Specifications

Manufacturer	Brunton
Stove	Raptor top-mount canister stove
Weight	5.7 oz (162 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 5 oz (142 g)
Size	Open 4.5 x 5.25 x 3.25 in (11 x 13 x 8 cm); packed size 1.75 x 1.5 x 2.5 in (4 x 4 x 6 cm)
Materials	Stainless steel
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, wide pot supports, nylon carry case
Heat Output	11,000 BTU/hr
MSRP	$40

Performance

At 5.7 ounces (without the 1.2 ounce carrying case), the Raptor is a heavyweight compared to many mini-canister stoves, which weigh around 3 ounces. However, compared to other stoves we reviewed, the Raptor gives you more features for your money.

The Raptor’s wide (6.25 inches) pot supports allow it to hold larger pots and pans. The pot supports also lay flat, giving it lots of contact. I had no problem cooking with an 8-inch fry pan. This feature makes the Raptor especially suitable for group cooking. Brunton offers a plastic stand for the canister to make the stove even more stable with larger pots (top mount canister stoves are known to be top-heavy).

Normally, stoves with wider pot supports also have a wide burner head to spread the flame across the bottom of a wider cookpot, but the Raptor has a small burner. I found the small burner works fine at a low flame level for fine simmering or a high flame level for boiling water, but it creates a hot spot when cooking with a moderate flame. Sautéing onions and green peppers in a titanium pot required a low flame and patience to avoid scorching. The same was true with cooking pancakes or an omelet. In this respect the Raptor performed similarly to many of the mini-canister (small burner) stoves.

The piezo-electric igniter on the Raptor works well at warm and cold temperatures. For best results, open the value until you can hear gas coming out then hit the igniter. Like most piezo-electric ignition systems, it does not ignite very well if you open the valve too far and release too much gas pressure.

The Raptor’s flame control is precise. It goes from a candle to a blow torch in less than one quarter turn. There is no rebound or flame creep that requires re-adjustment. I did find, however, that it is easy to unintentionally turn the stove off while trying to adjust for a low flame.

On one snowshoe outing I tested three canister stoves’ ability to melt a pot full of snow by melting 2 pounds of snow plus 1 pound of water in a 1.5-liter titanium pot and boiling the resulting 1.4 quarts of water. The results for the Brunton Raptor are shown in comparison to the other stoves in Table 1. First note that the boil times are huge – three times longer than optimal conditions. The Raptor used a little less fuel than the other stoves. More important, note that it requires twice as much fuel to melt snow and boil the water (1.0 ounce, or about a quarter of a small canister) than it does to boil water under optimal conditions. Furthermore, about the same amount of fuel is consumed to melt snow and boil the water as boiling the same amount of water unprotected in a direct wind.

The heating efficiency of the Brunton Raptor is summarized in Table 2, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested to date. For more detailed information see the Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Five More Canister Stoves.

The Raptor’s performance is a mixed bag. Under optimal conditions, its boil time is a little slower than average, taking almost a minute longer to boil a quart of water (no big deal). More important, its fuel efficiency ranks with the better performing stoves we have tested. Unfortunately its performance falls down under windy conditions; it was one of the more wind sensitive stoves we tested.

What’s Unique

The Brunton Raptor is targeted to provide a good value for a base level canister stove. It includes piezo-electric ignition, wide pot supports, and stainless steel construction for $40. The only other stove we have reviewed with similar features and price is the Primus TechnoTrail. The TechnoTrail at 6.4 ounces is a little heavier and its fuel efficiency is not as good as the Raptor. The Coleman Exponent F1 Ultralight and MSR PocketRocket also sell for $40. Both are much lighter than the Raptor and perform better, but lack the Raptor’s features. Overall, the Raptor is a good choice for a base level stove, especially for group cooking.

Recommendations for Improvement

Like many canister stoves, the Raptor loses a lot of efficiency in windy conditions. This has a lot to do with burner design. The Raptor’s burner is very similar to the Snow Peak GigaPower, which is also very wind sensitive. Some engineering improvements would be desirable to make the Raptor more wind resistant.

Introduction

When I requested review samples of the Kovea Camp 3 and Markill Peak Ignition , I did not realize that they are identical stoves. Both are titanium mini-canister stoves with piezo-electric ignition and weigh only 3.3 ounces (94 grams). This review, and the review of the Markill Peak Ignition, will hopefully untangle any confusion that readers may have about these stoves. Note: The Camp 3 and Peak Ignition are very similar to the Vargo Jet-Ti stove (not reviewed, the Jet-Ti does not have piezo-electric ignition). Kovea of South Korea manufacturers all three stoves.

What’s Good

• Strong titanium construction
• Compact and lightweight
• Standard piezo-electric ignition
• Precise flame control

What’s Not so Good

• Very sensitive to wind
• Piezo-electric igniter works inconsistently in cold or wind
• “Flame lift-off” at full throttle reduces heating efficiency

Specifications

Manufacturer	Kovea (South Korea)
Stove	Camp 3 top-mount canister stove
Weight	3.3 oz (94 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 3.1 oz (88 g)
Size	Open 4 x 2.8 x 2.8 in (10 x 7 x 7 cm); closed 2.8 x 2.4 x 1.6 in (7 x 6 x 4 cm)
Materials	Titanium and brass
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, hard plastic carry case
Heat Output	8,800 BTU/hr
MSRP	48,000 South Korean Won (approximately $48 US)

Performance

Basically, if you purchase the Kovea Camp 3 or the Markill Peak Ignition, (Markill is a subsidiary of Vaude), you are getting the same stove. The only discernable difference between the two stoves is that one has “Kovea” stamped on the piezo-electric igniter and the other is stamped with “Markill”. As you will see from reading my lab test report (cited below), the performance of these two stoves is virtually identical.

Note: The Vargo Jet-Ti stove is very similar to the Kovea Camp 3 stove reviewed here. The Jet-Ti is made by Kovea, and is obviously patterned after the Camp 3. The differences are that the Jet-Ti has solid (not hinged) pot supports and manual ignition. These changes get the weight of the Vargo Jet-Ti down to 2.7 ounces. The burner head on the Vargo appears to be identical to the Kovea Camp 3.

The Camp 3’s pot supports are hinged so the ends flip out to provide a diameter of 4.75 inches. Contact with the bottom of a cook pot is mostly at the tips of the pot supports. I found this design to be stable for the pots I tested it with, but it depends on the bottom surface of your cookpot. Pots with a smooth bottom are stable if properly centered, while pots with indentations in the bottom can be tipsy. A fry pan had to be balanced off-center or hand held to stay in place.

I found the Camp 3’s piezo-electric igniter to be a bit variable. It worked fine in warmer temperatures, but was less consistent in cold temperatures and wind. At 50 °F I counted six tries with the piezo-electric to light the stove in one test run, and only one try on the second test run.

Flame control is precise with no re-adjustment required. The flame adjusts from a fine simmer to full throttle in a little over one-quarter turn of the controller.

At full flame, performance is impaired by a phenomenon called “flame lift-off,” which is explained in Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Basically, at full throttle the flames lift above the burner head, and some lift high enough that they actually blow out. The blow out occurs erratically above the burner head, and is accentuated by wind. This results in less efficient combustion and heat transfer to a cookpot. The Kovea Camp 3 shares the same burner design as its twin, the Markill Peak Ignition, and also with the Kovea X2, and all have the same problem.

Because of the “flame lift-off” problem, the Kovea Camp 3 performs more efficiently at less than full throttle and under non-windy conditions. Fortunately, for cooking control and fuel efficiency reasons, it is normal to use a canister stove at less than full throttle. Using a low or moderate flame level, the Camp 3 is a good cooker. With its precise flame control, it easily cooked an omelet and fried pancakes in a fry pan, and sautéed onions and green peppers in a titanium cookpot. With the smaller burner, it worked best to use a low flame and allow more cooking time to avoid burning in the middle of a pot or pan.

On one snowshoe outing I tested three canister stoves’ ability to melt snow by melting 2 pounds of snow plus 1 pound of water in a 1.5-liter titanium pot and boiling the resulting 1.4 quarts of water. The results for the Camp 3 are shown in comparison to the other stoves in Table 1. First note that the boil times are huge – three times longer than optimal conditions. The Camp 3 used a little more fuel than the other stoves. More important, note that it requires twice as much fuel to melt snow and boil the water than it does to boil water under optimal conditions. Furthermore, about the same amount of fuel is consumed to melt snow and boil the water as boiling the same amount of water unprotected in a direct wind.

The heating efficiency of the Kovea Camp 3 is summarized in Table 2, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested. For more detailed information see Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Overall, the Camp 3 is slower to boil water, is more sensitive to wind, and is less fuel-efficient than average. Since the majority of these tests were performed using a full throttle setting, I believe the Camp 3’s lower performance is due to its “flame lift-off” problem. These test results are nearly identical to the Markill Peak Ignition stove.

What’s Unique

The Camp 3 is nicely designed. The pot supports are hinged and slide to one side, making it one of the most compact canister stoves we have tested.

Recommendations for Improvement

If it were not for its problem with “flame lift-off,” the Kovea Camp 3 would be one of our favorite canister stoves. The Camp 3’s flame lift-off problem definitely requires some attention. Also the piezo-electric igniter could stand some improvement so it works more consistently.

Introduction

Weighing only 3.3 ounces (94 grams), the Markill Peak Ignition is a titanium mini-canister stove with piezo-electric ignition. Markill is a subsidiary of Vaude, a German outdoor equipment manufacturer. When I requested the Markill Peak Ignition for review, I didn’t realize that it is identical to the Kovea Camp 3. The Peak Ignition is, in fact, manufactured by Kovea of South Korea. This review (and the review of the identical Kovea Camp 3) will help untangle any confusion that readers may have about these stoves. Note: the Camp 3 and Peak Ignition are very similar to the Vargo Jet-Ti stove (not reviewed), which is made by Kovea of South Korea.

What’s Good

• Strong titanium construction
• Compact and lightweight
• Standard piezo-electric ignition
• Precise flame control

What’s Not So Good

• Very sensitive to wind
• Piezo-electric igniter does not work well in cold or wind
• “Flame lift-off” at full throttle reduces heating efficiency

Specifications

Manufacturer	Vaude (Markill is a subsidiary)
Stove	Markill Peak Ignition top-mount canister stove (Markill Hot Rod in the US)
Weight	3.4 oz (96 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 3.1 oz (88 g)
Size	Open 4 x 2.8 x 2.8 in (10 x 7 x 7 cm); closed 2.8 x 2.4 x 1.6 in (7 x 6 x 4 cm)
Materials	Titanium and brass
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, nylon carry case
Heat Output	8,800 BTU/hr
MSRP	EUR 50 (approximately $61 US)

Performance

Basically, if you purchase the Markill Peak Ignition (sold in the US as the Hot Rod) or the Kovea Camp 3, you are getting the same thing. The only discernable difference between the two stoves is that one has “Markill” stamped on the piezo-electric igniter and the other is stamped with “Kovea.” As you will see from reading Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves, the performance of these two stoves is virtually identical.

Note: The Vargo Jet-Ti stove sold in the US is very similar to the Markill stove reviewed here and the Kovea Camp 3. The differences are that the Jet-Ti has solid (not hinged) pot supports and is manual ignition. These changes get the weight of the Vargo Jet-Ti down to 2.7 ounces. The burner head on the Vargo appears to be identical to the Peak Ignition.

The three pot supports are hinged so the ends flip out to provide a diameter of 4.75 inches. Contact with the bottom of a cookpot is mostly at the tips of the pot supports. I found this design to be stable for small to medium sized cookpots, but it depends on the bottom surface of your pot. Smooth pots are more stable, assuming they are centered properly, but indentations on the bottom of some pots may cause them to be tipsy. A fry pan had to be balanced off-center or hand held to stay in place.

The piezo-electric igniter on the Peak Ignition worked well at warm temperatures, but did not work well in cold temperatures or wind. At 50 °F I counted eleven tries with the piezo-electric igniter to light the stove. I tried different valve settings to no avail.

Flame control of the Peak Ignition is precise with no re-adjustment required. The flame adjusts from a fine simmer to full throttle in a little over one-fourth turn of the controller.

At full flame, performance is impaired by a phenomenon called “flame lift-off,” which is explained in my test report referenced below. Basically, at full throttle the flames lift above the burner, and some lift high enough that they actually blow out. The blowout occurs erratically above the burner head, and is accentuated by wind. This situation results in less efficient combustion and heat transfer to a cookpot. The Kovea Camp 3 and X2 stoves I reviewed had the same problem. I have no information on whether this problem exists in the Vargo Jet-Ti stove.

Because of the “flame lift-off” problem, the Peak Ignition performs better at less than full throttle and in calm conditions. Fortunately, for cooking control and fuel efficiency reasons, it is advisable to use a canister stove at less than full throttle. Using a low or moderate flame level, the Peak Ignition cooks well. With its precise flame control, the Peak Ignition easily cooked an omelet and fried pancakes in a fry pan, and sautéed onions and green peppers in a titanium cookpot. Because of the small burner, it works best to use a low flame and take more time for sautéing or frying. Using a moderate flame creates a hot spot (and burning) in the middle of a pot or pan.

On one snowshoe outing I tested three canister stoves’ ability to melt snow by melting 2 pounds of snow plus 1 pound of water in a 1.5-liter titanium pot and boiling the resulting 1.4 quarts of water. The results for the Peak Ignition are shown in comparison to the other stoves in Table 1. First note that the boil times are very long – three times longer than optimal conditions. Also note that it requires twice as much fuel to melt snow and boil the water than it does to boil water under optimal conditions. Furthermore, about the same amount of fuel is consumed to melt snow and boil the water as boiling the same amount of water unprotected in a direct wind. Finally, note that the data for the Peak Ignition and its twin the Camp 3 are very close but not identical; each stove was tested only once, and this is normal variation between test runs.

The heating efficiency of the Peak Ignition is summarized in Table 2, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested to date. For more detailed information see Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Overall, the Peak Ignition is slower to boil water, is more sensitive to wind, and is less fuel-efficient than average. Since the majority of these tests were performed using a full throttle setting, I believe the Peak Ignition’s lower performance is due to its “flame lift-off” problem. In my opinion the Peak Ignition should provide good performance at low to moderate flame settings.

What’s Unique

The Peak Ignition is nicely designed. The pot supports are hinged and slide to one side, making it one of the most compact canister stoves we have tested.

Recommendations for Improvement

If it were not for its problem with “flame lift-off,” the Peak Ignition would be one of our favorite canister stoves. The Peak Ignition’s flame lift-off problem definitely requires some attention. Also the piezo-electric igniter could stand some improvement to make it work better.

Overview

The Rab Quantum Top Bag is a 32 °F (0 °C) minimalist top bag weighing only 16.0 ounces (454 g, regular width). Its light weight is the result of a simplistic design: no zippers, draft baffles, hood, or bottom insulation. The Q-Top is a top bag, designed to be used in conjunction with a sleeping pad to provide insulation on the bottom. We found a lot to like about the Rab Quantum Q-Top, but we also found some major design problems that wrecked its ratings.

In Brief

• Minimalist 32 °F top bag with no zipper, draft baffles, or hood
• Weighs only 16.0 ounces (regular girth bag)
• Pertex Quantum outer shell (with DWR) and inner lining
• Insulated with 200 grams (7 oz) of 850+ goose down using narrow box-wall construction
• Bottom (uninsulated) panel is too wide for standard sleeping pads and doesn’t seal, resulting in serious heat loss
• Regular girth is too tight with pad inside, consider attaching pad to the bottom or getting the extra wide bag
• Long and short sizes are not available

Specifications

Manufacturer	Rab Carrington Ltd
Model	Quantum Top Bag
Type	Top bag
Size and Style Both sizes reviewed	Regular length and girth, regular length/extra wide girth, mummy style, hoodless, zipperless
Weight	Backpacking Light measurements oz (g) Manufacturer Specification oz (g) Regular length, Regular girth 16.0 (454) 15.2 (430) Regular length, Extra wide girth 17.4 (493) –
Stuff sack Dimensions and Weight	5 in x 9.5 in (13 x 24 cm), 187 ci (3.1 L)
Fill Type	Down, 750+ EU (850+ US)
Fill Weight	7 oz (200 g)
Loft	Backpacking Light measured single layer loft 2.5 in (6 cm)
Manufacturer’s Rating	32 °F (0 °C)
Fabrics	Outer shell is Pertex Quantum with DWR, 0.9 oz/yd2 (30 g/m2); lining is Pertex Quantum, 0.9 oz/yd2 (30 g/m2)
Hood	No
Features	Narrow box-wall construction with variable height baffles, elastic drawcord at neck
Model Year	2004
MSRP	£130 (approximately $250 US) for the regular girth bag; £136.50 (approximately $260 US) for the extra wide bag

Features

Reviewing the upgraded Rab top bag was a bit nostalgic for the Backpacking Light staff, because our very first review was of the original Rab top bag. At that time the bag had a Pertex Microlight shell (1.3 oz/yd²) and lightweight mesh bottom. Back then it was state-of-the-art and a trend setter. How does the current version of the classic Rab top bag shape up in today’s market? Just a hint – Rab fixed one problem, and we wish they had listened to our other suggestions.

The current Rab Quantum Q-Top is a minimalist top bag in every way. It’s a uniformly tapered mummy-style bag with no zipper, hood, or draft baffles; just an elastic drawcord that snugs the bag around your neck. Insulation covers the top, sides, and underneath the feet. Most of the bag’s bottom is a single layer of fabric, so the bag must be used in conjunction with a sleeping pad to provide insulation on the bottom (more on that issue in the next section).

The bag’s outer shell and lining are Pertex Quantum, which is lightweight, soft, downproof, highly breathable, and durable. It’s the present state-of-the-art for lightweight performance sleeping bags and clothing. The outer shell has a durable water repellent (DWR) treatment to resist wetting from condensation. We found the Quantum fabric slides easily on most tent floors, particularly on silnylon floors.

The insulation is as good as it gets – 750+ EU/850+ US fill power goose down. With narrow box-wall construction and variable height baffles for efficient down distribution, the 200 grams of down in the Q-Top produce 2.5 inches of single-layer measured loft. Other than its superb shell and high lofting down insulation, the Q-Top is notable for its lack of extra features, bringing the weight down to 16.0 ounces (the extra wide version weighs 17.4 ounces) for a 32 °F rated bag.

The Quantum Q-Top is available in regular length/regular width and regular length/extra width only. Other bags in Rab’s Quantum series are available in regular length, extra long, extra short, and extra wide. The Q-Top comes with a water-resistant Pertex Quantum stuff sack that is properly sized for the bag, plus a cotton storage bag.

Rab’s Top Bag Design

If you haven’t used a top bag before, then getting the Rab Quantum Top Bag will cause some major puzzlement. There are no instructions on how to use it – especially whether the sleeping pad goes inside the bag or under it (we clarify all this in our Review Summary). According to Rab’s website, the Q-Top “is designed to be used on adventure races, mountain marathons and minimalist backpacking trips in conjunction with an insulating pad that is best cut to the shape of the bag (or for the hard core use bubble wrap!)”. If you interpret Rab’s “instructions” literally, it would mean that you would have to acquire a piece of wide closed-cell foam (not readily available) and cut it so it is a little wider than the bag’s 22-inch wide uninsulated bottom panel, so it makes a good seal on the sides. That’s okay, but nowadays most hikers use a sleeping pad that is a standard 20 inches wide.

Table 1: Comparative data for the Rab Quantum Top Bag regular girth bag and extra wide girth bag

	Regular Length/Girth Backpacking Light measurements in (cm)	Regular Length/Extra Wide Girth Backpacking Light measurements in (cm)
Shoulder Girth	62.1 (158)	70.0 (178)
Hip Girth	53.3 (135)	65.5 (161)
Foot Girth	36.5 (93)	50.5 (128)
Length	68.8 (175)	68.8 (175)
Sleeping Pad Panel	21.8 W x 58.5 L (55 x 149)	25.5 W x 58.5 L (65 x 149)
Insulation Width at Top	40.3 (102)	44.5 (113)

We found three major problems with the Q-Top: 1) with a thin sleeping pad inside, the regular girth bag is too tight (especially at the hips), resulting in compressed down and cold spots if you are wearing anything more than a base layer; 2) the uninsulated bottom panel is too wide, so there is serious heat loss around the perimeter of a standard width sleeping pad through the single layer fabric bottom; and 3) when using a pad outside and underneath the bag there is no means to seal the bag’s insulation to the sleeping pad to eliminate cold spots. The sides of the sleeping bag pull up from the pad exposing a perimeter of single-layer uninsulated fabric.

The anomaly is even greater for the “extra wide girth” version of the Q-Top, because the width of the bottom panel grows from 21.8 inches to 25.5 inches. This creates a large uninsulated gap around the sleeping pad, resulting in serious heat loss and cold spots.

The upshot of this is that a sleeping pad inside the regular Q-Top simply doesn’t work; it must be placed underneath, and there is no provision to attach it to the bottom and seal it to the insulated top. The bag lifts up from the pad, exposing the uninsulated bottom panel. A thin standard width sleeping pad can be used inside the extra girth Q-Top, but the extra wide bottom panel leaves 3 inches of uninsulated space on each side, and there is no easy way to seal it up. If you use the extra girth bag and custom cut your pad you can effectively seal the bottom, but the extra pad width adds unnecessary weight.

Another issue with the Rab Quantum Top Bag is its limited insulated shoulder and hip girth, measuring only 40.3 inches on the regular bag and 44.5 inches on the extra girth bag. In contrast, the Nunatak Arc Ghost top bag has an insulated shoulder girth of 46 inches (it also has two straps to snug the insulation against a sleeping pad).

The Rab top bag was the first one on the market, and the only change to the bottom panel that we know of since its inception is the switch from mesh to solid fabric. Apparently, the bottom panel design has not been updated. In our opinion, it is simply not an adequate design by today’s standards. In the next section, we discuss how the Q-Top can be modified to make it perform better.

Our Modifications to Improve Performance

We attempted to modify two Rab Q-top bags (one regular girth and one extra wide girth). On the regular girth bag we opened the seam between the uninsulated bottom and insulated top in several places and sewed grosgrain loops into the seam. We attempted to use these loops to more securely seal a pad to the edges of the insulated top. On the extra wide bag we sewed a fold into the bottom panel to reduce its width to 20 inches, and added pad straps to the bottom. Putting the sleeping pad under the bag resulted in increased inside girth and provided a slip-free contact with tent floors.

The modification did not work well for the regular girth bag. To seal the pad to the insulated panel, we effectively had to reduce the width of the uninsulated panel to the width of a sleeping pad. The 1.8 inches lost made for a very tight fit inside the bag (remember, no zipper!) and some down compression resulted. For a side sleeper, there were still cold spots at the edges of the pad. We had better luck modifying the extra girth bag; it provided (barely) enough shoulder and hip girth to wear extra clothing inside.

Bottom line, the user should not be expected to modify a product, or adapt to its shortcomings, to make it work. Rab needs to increase the girth of the insulated top and redesign the bottom panel so it seals a sleeping bag to the top without leaving uninsulated gaps.

Performance

Will (6′, 170 pounds) slept in the Q-Top regular girth bag using three different sleeping systems (double wall tent, single wall tent, and bivy) on several backpacking trips in the Southern Rockies. Nighttime temperatures consistently dropped into the 28-35 °F range. On those trips a Therm-a-Rest Prolite 3/4-length sleeping pad (1-inch thick) was used inside the bag, and clothing worn consisted of microfleece long johns, windstopper fleece hat, and fleece socks. With this pad/clothing combination, the regular girth bag was way too tight in the hip area (see photo above), compressing the down at the hips and widening the gap between the pad and the uninsulated bottom panel of the bag, resulting in cold spots. The bag was warmer in the double wall tent or bivy, because of the extra shelter. The single-wall Tarptent was coldest on 30 °F nights because of nighttime breezes circulating through. Conclusion: placing a sleeping pad inside the regular girth Rab Q-Top does not work – it’s way too tight.

Placing the sleeping pad under the Q-Top in the same sleeping systems significantly increased shoulder and hip girth inside the bag, which eliminated the problem of down compression and cold spots in those areas. However, wearing an insulated jacket inside the bag to extend its warmth resulted in a tighter fit and cold spots. Conclusion: this works better, but is still not good.

The unmodified wide-girth sleeping bag with pad underneath was warmer, despite an even wider uninsulated panel, because the extra width of the down top allowed the insulation to drape more like a quilt, sealing the edges somewhat. This worked fine on warmer nights, but the insulated top was not wide enough to tuck under the pad to seal the edges, creating cold spots on colder nights. Side sleeping while wearing an insulated jacket inside opened a gap next to the sleeping pad, creating some serious cold spots in the hip area. Wearing an insulated jacket plus insulated pants inside the bag helped to reduce the effect of the cold spots. Conclusion: this arrangement works on warmer nights, but it’s hard to eliminate cold spots on a cooler night.

The modified wide girth bag with sleeping pad attached to the bottom was distinctly warmer than the above two options. The seal between the insulated sides of the bag and sleeping pad was much better, and the pad stayed in place quite well, even with frequent rollovers during the night. This configuration provided adequate hip space for side sleeping and room to wear extra clothing inside the bag. With the sleeping pad attached to the bottom, and wearing a down jacket and down pants inside, Will was able to stay warm in the Q-Top down to 23 °F while sleeping in a bivy. Conclusion: attaching the pad to the bottom of the modified wide-girth sleeping bag frees up some room inside, allowing one to wear insulated clothing inside the bag. The insulated clothing and attachment of pad to bag reduces the effects of cold spots along the sides of the pad.

Jay continued the review of Rab’s regular girth Q-Top under the stars, under a tarp, and inside his homemade sil-pyramid tent (built with mesh sides like a Tarptent), in temperatures ranging from 45 °F to 28 °F. The unmodified regular girth Q-Top with a thin closed-cell foam pad (RidgeRest) inside worked marginally for Jay (5′ 7″, 155 pounds) on warmer nights, but only with minimal clothing and sleeping on his back or belly. Wearing heavier clothing or using a thicker pad caused down compression at the hips and accentuated the gaps next to the sleeping pad – the bag was simply too tight. Wearing a Western Mountaineering Flight Jacket inside the bag on colder nights gave minimal relief. Although cold spots were kept at bay, there was enough down compression in the jacket and bag to offset the expected improvement in warmth. In contrast, Jay has used the Flight Jacket under a quilt with equivalent loft into the low 20’s with much better results.

Placing the pad under the bag mostly solves the girth problem. Jay was able to wear a synthetic fill jacket with minimal loft compression. However, lying inside the bag with the pad underneath allows the bag to lift up from the pad, exposing more of the uninsulated panel. Jay was able to sleep warm in lower temperatures with this configuration, but not at the temperature rating Rab assigns to this bag.

The modified regular girth bag, with sleeping pad attached to the underside of the bag at the insulated panel seam, sounds like the obvious solution, right? Well, not exactly. The uninsulated bottom panel is 21.8 inches wide. Attaching a 20-inch pad effectively reduces the total girth by 1.8 inches. While this may seem trivial, consider that the bag becomes more D-shaped (with the flat part of the D on the ground) rather than circular. The effect is compressed down at the top of the bag, made worse by side sleepers.

Conclusion: the regular girth Rab Q-Top is too tight, and it’s hard to avoid cold spots. Either the insulation is compressed or cold air slips in along the edges of the uninsulated panel. Sleeping on your back or belly helps, but the bag needs more girth in the insulated top and some means to seal the top to a sleeping pad.

Our conclusion is validated by the ideal modification of the Rab Top Bag done by Alan Dixon, Backpacking Light’s Product Review Director. Alan had the side seams along the bottom panel opened and extra insulated panels sewn in, increasing the bag’s insulated girth. With this modification and a sleeping pad under the bag, he has eliminated cold spots and down compression issues and the bag now has sufficient girth to wear extra clothing inside.

With Rab’s use of top-of-the-line materials and long-term experience with top bags, we expected better performance from the Rab Quantum Top Bag. No instructions were provided on how Rab expected us to use the bag. The problems lie with the design of the uninsulated bottom panel. Although it’s obvious the bag is designed to put a sleeping pad inside the bag, there is simply not enough room inside for a sleeping pad and person. And there is no provision for sealing the insulated top to a sleeping pad underneath.

The Rab Q-Top top bag apparently retains an early design that is not adequate by today’s standards, resulting in mediocre performance compared to other top bags on the market. Our modifications were enough to obtain acceptable performance and illustrate how the Q-top’s performance can be improved by modifying the design. The Rab Quantum Top Bag clearly needs a re-design to efficiently and effectively utilize a sleeping pad for bottom insulation, and it can be done with minimal added weight.

Missing from this review (and for all sleeping bag reviews published here, for that matter) will be an assessment of whether or not the sleeping bag performs adequately at temperatures near its manufacturer-reported temperature rating. Click here for the complete Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings.

Durability

Pertex Quantum does not rank high as a durable fabric, but is more than adequate for this lightweight application. We observed very little down penetration through the shell fabric, and its DWR treatment kept condensation away from the down. Rab’s narrow box wall construction works well to hold down in place; we did not notice any down shifting at all. Used in combination with a groundsheet or tent floor, the bag held up without incident through months of testing. With proper care, the Rab Quantum Top Bag should provide many years of ultralight warmth without failure.

Value

The Rab Quantum Top Bag is a “mixed bag,” so to speak. We love it for its Pertex Quantum shell, high loft down insulation, baffle construction, light weight, and excellent seam work. If we consider materials and construction alone, and compare it to other similar bags from makers like Western Mountaineering and Nunatak, the Q-Top is an exceptional value. However, placing a sleeping pad inside the bag simply does not work, and the oversized bottom (uninsulated) panel creates unacceptable cold spots. Despite the agreeable price (approximately $250 USD) for an 850 fill down bag with a Pertex Quantum shell, the Rab Q-top barely rates an average value due to disappointing design flaws.

Tips and Tricks

Since this bag has no hood, it is important to wear a warm hat or balaclava to keep your head warm. If a buyer were willing to purchase the extra wide bag and modify it to fit a standard sleeping pad attached to the bottom, then the Q-Top would be a functional bag.

Recommendations for Improvement

With top of the line materials and a very competitive price, the Rab Q-Top would be an outstanding bag with a few modifications to the design:

• Size the uninsulated bottom panel to snugly fit a standard 20-inch wide sleeping pad.
• Devise a simple arrangement (such as two to three grosgrain straps) to attach a sleeping pad to the bottom of the bag. Anchoring these straps in the seam between the insulated and uninsulated panels will ensure a better seal against cold spots.
• Increase the insulated girth of the regular cut bag to properly fit an average sized person (assuming bottom attachment of a sleeping pad). This would mean a shoulder girth of around 60 inches. The extra girth bag may need to be increased likewise.
• Offer the Quantum Top Bag in extra long and extra short sizes in addition to extra wide sizes.

Introduction

The Fire-fly is manufactured by Mo-go-gear and sold exclusively by Gossamer Gear. It comes as a cooking system including a burner, pot stand, heat reflector, windscreen, and fuel measuring cup. Weighing a scant 1.56 ounces for the whole kit, the Fire-fly is one of the lightest cooking systems we have reviewed.

Four of our editors tested the Fire-fly in different regions of the county. Although it’s primarily a solo stove suitable for cooking simple meals, we found that it is fully capable of cooking for two. Except for a few reservations about the pot stand, we found the Fire-fly to be one of the best performing and lightest alcohol stoves we have tested to date.

What’s Good

• Complete cooking system (sans pot)
• Windscreen is adjustable for pot diameter
• Soft temper aluminum windscreen is easy to shape and roll up
• Cooks for 1 or 2 people

What’s Not So Good

• Pot stand is a bit heavy
• Heat reflector is too small for the pot stand
• Pot stand can be tippy

Specifications

Manufacturer	Mo-go-gear
Retailer	Gossamer Gear
Stove	2005 Mo-go-gear Fire-fly Alcohol Stove Kit
Burner	Open jet, aluminum, 2-inches in diameter and 1-inch high
Features	Adjustable windscreen, sturdy 3-inch diameter pot stand, soft temper aluminum windscreen and heat reflector
Weight	1.56 oz measured weight
MSRP	$23

Performance

The Fire-fly uses a mini alcohol burner (2-inches in diameter) with a capacity of 1.25 ounces. The heat reflector and 3-inch x 24-inch windscreen are made of soft temper 36 gauge aluminum, which is the same material that MSR uses for their windscreens, only thinner.

The windscreen is easily adjusted to pot size by expanding it to the desired diameter, then securing it with a paper clip. We tested a variety of pot shapes and sizes (MSR Titan Kettle, Evernew 0.9 liter titanium pot, Snow Peak titanium bowl, and Heinekin and Foster’s 24 ounce beer cans with top removed), and found that it readily accommodates cups and pots up to about 1.5 liters.

The pot stand opens to a 3-inch triangle. All of the testers commented that the pot stand (made of steel rod and brass) is on the heavy side. At 0.7 ounce, it accounts for half the weight of the cooking system.

The Fire-fly’s open jet burner has 8 large jets, each producing a flame about 1.5 inches long. The resulting 5-inch flame pattern is just right for a MSR Titan pot (shown), but a little too wide for a 3.5- inch wide beer can pot. One oddity is the Fire-fly tends to flicker some (individual jets going out, then re-igniting), especially in the wind. This makes me wonder if 12 smaller jets would be better than 8 larger ones, but some experimenting would be needed to find the optimal design.

All of the testers found that the pot stand was basically sturdy, but it required careful placement of a cooking pot on the stand to find the “sweet spot” where it was stable. The tippy pot problems were caused by indentations in the bottom of pots and how the pot was centered on the stand. We had this problem with both narrow and wide pots.

The Fire-fly is targeted as a solo stove, and indeed most of our testers used it for solo-cooking. On several outings with my spouse I cooked for two using the Fire-fly and a MSR 1.5 liter titanium pot, and found that the Fire-fly easily cooks for two.

The Fire-fly does not have any simmering capability, so it is best suited for simple meals using the “boil and set” method where you boil water, add your food, bring it back to boiling, let it stand 10 minutes, and eat.

The Fire-fly scored well in our traditional stove performance tests (see table below). Its boil time under optimal conditions (1 pint of 70 °F water) was 7:54, almost dead on with the manufacturer’s claim of 8 minutes. Fuel consumption to boil 1 pint of water was 0.38 ounce (10.9 grams), which ranked third out of 22 alcohol stoves tested to date. Only the Ion Stove at 10.4 grams and the Advanced Mountain Products Alumilite stove at 10.8 grams had lower fuel consumption. This is essentially a three-way tie for first place. The average fuel consumption of all stoves tested is 15.2 grams. Note that fuel consumption is increased about 20% in cold conditions and about 200%(doubled) in windy conditions.

Stove Performance Test Results (Optimal Conditions)

	Boil Time min:sec	Fuel Consumption oz (g)
Fire-fly	7:54	0.38 (10.9)
Average of all Stoves Tested	6:38	0.54 (15.2)

What’s Unique

The Fire-fly stove gets it mostly right. Most of the other alcohol stoves we reviewed are too heavy, too big, not adjustable for pot size, not a complete cooking system, or have extended boil times or low fuel efficiency. The Fire-fly is lightweight at 1.56 ounces, is a complete cooking system (sans pot), has a great windscreen that’s adjustable for pot size, has a reasonable boil time, and has excellent fuel efficiency.

Recommendations for Improvement

One reservation about this stove is the weighty and tippy pot stand. Indeed, it is a clever design and sturdy, but at 0.7 ounce it accounts for half the weight of the stove. Perhaps a thinner gauge titanium rod could be substituted for the steel rod. It would also be nice if the heat reflector were round instead of rectangular, and a little larger in diameter. Finally, the burner’s tendency to flicker might be corrected by experimenting with jet size and number.