MSR Pocket Rocket options

I use a single wall of the Caldera Cone as a windscreen for a pocket rocket. Works great. I tried a variety of myog windscreens but they were all fragile or complicated. Plus,in a pinch, I could use the Caldera to make a wood chip flame and boil water that way.

I haven't tried many stoves, but in defense of my pocket rocket I'll just say that it's super light, reliable–never failed me–and robust. I've had mine for many years; never an issue of any sort. With a windscreen it's remarkably efficient. But I'm a solo hiker, boil-water-only kind of cook.

Hi Christoph

> weren't some of them dangerous chinese copies?
There have been dangerous Chinese copies in the past (of many things!), but none of the models I mentioned present any dangers at all. They are all good and well-tested (by us) stoves. I suspect the mfrs have been learning along the way.

Cheers

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the reply! I was referring to your post here:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=96889

Did they change this stove then?

Hi Christopher

> Did they change this stove then?
I don't think so.
My initial comments were made before I tested a BRS-3000T and were just wrong.
I have since edited my older postings.

I think that some of the older BRS stoves may have had some problems, but one does have to be wary of reports from seriously incompetent users. That often happens.

Whatever the history, the current stove shows quite neat engineering, and I have used it quite a lot. See
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/brs-3000t-review-caffin.html

Cheers

How do you distinguish the older BRS stoves from the newer ones?

–B.G.–

Ho Bob

> How do you distinguish the older BRS stoves from the newer ones?
Yeah, good Question.

I just tried to get their web site. I have two URLs for them:
http://www.brs.com.cn
en.brs.net.cn

The first one timed out THIS time.
I have to say the second email address, which did work, violates several internet 'rules' for format – but I am not sure whether the Chinese understand the rules.

Anyhow, the stoves listed at the 2nd URL are a bit of a mixture. Under GAS stoves they have both canister and pumped liquid fuel, and many of the stoves look identical to older Fire Maple ones. However, you must remember that the Chinese typically do not recognise (understand?) the concept of intellectual property, so copying designs is normal for them.

They (BRS) do list a few new ones. Those LOOK ok, but I have not tested them. I guess … you would need to buy and test. With care.

Cheers

"I am not sure whether the Chinese understand the rules."

When has that ever stopped them?

–B.G.–

If there are no consequences what good does a Rule do ?
Witness the widespread downloading (pirating?) of online music files a few years
ago. It's not just the Chinese.

Larry

"Billy, how well does that slightly recessed burner head on the Soto actually work in brisk (~15mph) winds?"

I'd say the Soto doesn't work significantly better than any other stove in the wind… still needs a windscreen except for maybe the very slightest breeze.

billy

OK, thanks.

I was wondering if/how such a small recess could make it hugely better than some others.

Search for my thread & photos on the windscreen I revised for my canister-top stove.

Roger, please clarify your statement: "I have to say the second email address, which did work, violates several internet 'rules' for format – but I am not sure whether the Chinese understand the rules."

I cannot identify an issue with their website address, is there something that you don't think is formatted correctly? Unfamiliar is not always wrong, we have very specific documents that define these standards, maybe you can specify which rules or standards are being violated.

http://en.brs.net.cn/

http://en.brs.net.cn/contact.html

ceo@futailong.com

EDIT-STOVES: Received a BRS-3000T from a very gracious and kind forum member last week. Stove is working great so far, used it for a trip last night already!

> maybe you can specify which rules or standards are being violated.
> http://en.brs.net.cn/

.net is not meant to be for commercial use. For BRS it should be either .com or .com.cn

en.brs is also seriously outside convention. If you are using web protocols it should be http://www.brs . The conventional method of handling an 'English version' of the page would be http://www.brs.com.cn/en

HTH
Cheers