Mar 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm #1256764
Has anyone tried both? I'm definitely ordering one, I just don't know which.
No matter what, I will take my alcohol stove with for a backup and/or for a quick cup of joe, so it seems that the Inferno would add less weight. But, I've never heard anything bad about the Bushbuddy and I wonder how the Inferno stacks up against it.
Any opinions?Mar 21, 2010 at 4:56 pm #1589130
I believe Hendrik Morkel did some field comparisons between them a while back. Might want to check out his site.Mar 21, 2010 at 5:02 pm #1589135
@retropumpLocale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
I think it depends a lot on which size inferno you have. I have a 2 litre one, and it is sooo much easier to feed, can take larger sized wood, can be filled up and left for a while without continuous feeding, is more wind resistant by a country mile, and certainly more stable. You can warm your hands and body with it and use it as an open fireplace. As I recall I think it's lighter too…unless you add the weight of a Caldera Caddy for carrying it.
I don't know much about the smaller sized ones.
You can also leave the inner of the Inferno behind and save more weight. It burns slightly less efficiently, but this has not been a problem where I hike as wood is never the limiting ingredient. Without the inner you can load it with even more wood.Mar 21, 2010 at 5:49 pm #1589157
+1 for everything Lynn said.
I owned a bushbuddy ultra, and it was great the few times I used it, but I was frustrated with the little amount of wood you could load at a time.
I have since sold it, and have bought a ti-tri for my SP900. Even with a pot this small, you can load way more wood, and not have to watch it so closely.
I have not used the inferno because wood is also not my limiting factor.Mar 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm #1589188
Eric BlumensaadtBPL Member
@danepackerLocale: Mojave Desert
I recommend the CC Tri Ti for nearly the efficiency of a BB with, as mentioned in the posts above, longer burning time per fuel feed.
Please read my post on Backpacking Lightweight titled "Help Me Decide: Buffalo Chips or Alky" for more reasons to buy a Tri Ti Inferno.Mar 21, 2010 at 8:44 pm #1589217
I would think that the Bushbuddy Ultra would be more comparable to the Caldera ULC Ti-Tri, as both can fit in a pot (Snow Peak 900).
It seems to me that if the Bushbuddy is going through wood quicker than the Ti-Tri, then the fire is burning hotter. Which might mean a cleaner burn?
I'm still trying to decide between the two myself. I like the Caldera's integrated windscreen, but I also like that the Bushbuddy runs cool to the touch. Having both the ULC and the Ultra fit in a pot makes the choice even harder, as I don't like the Ti-Tri caddy.
I'd be interested if Ryan Jordan has any insight, since he was a big proponent of the Bushbuddy.Mar 21, 2010 at 9:12 pm #1589225
The Bushbuddy burns a lot cleaner than the ti-tri, but I have no experience with the inferno insert, which uses the same concept as the bushbuddy.
It's not that the bushbuddy goes through wood 'quicker' that made me go another direction, it is the volume you are able to insert. You can only put small twigs into a bushbuddy, there is not very much room. However, you can put pieces of wood that are a lot bigger inside the ti-tri, making the burn last longer.
I may be mistaken, as I had only used my Bushbuddy a few times, but I am pretty sure that it does not run cool to the touch. I had thought that was the case when made the purchase, but when I went to pick it up as it was burning I got quite the surprise.
Even though I chose the ti-tri, i think that playing with the Bushbuddy was a lot of fun. It burns so hot and efficient that there is barely any ash leftover. I think there are examples on Jason Klass' blog, and Hendrik's.Mar 21, 2010 at 9:27 pm #1589237
Yeah. I was suspicious about the cool to the touch; if you look at a picture of a used one there's noticeable discolouration of the steel. Thanks for clarifying that. I know I'd pick it up and get that surprise.
I guess my mind is stuck between the BB Ultra and the Ti-Tri ULC w/ Inferno. I really like the ability to pack them inside a pot. With that small size, I imagine that they have similar sized wood chambers too.
Good call on the Jason Klass. I hadn't though of using a tampon for a fire starter.Mar 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm #1589250
@tippymcstaggerLocale: North Texas
"Please read my post on Backpacking Lightweight titled "Help Me Decide: Buffalo Chips or Alky" for more reasons to buy a Tri Ti Inferno."
Link please.Mar 21, 2010 at 10:30 pm #1589267
I havn't seen an ULC in action, but here are my thoughts:
-Chambers may be same size
-Can use alcohol with both, though ULC most likely more efficient
-Both have pot stands (ULC is the pot stand, and less likely to spill the pot)
-No windscreen with Bushbuddy, where the ULC is the windscreen
-Not sure what the weight comparison is, but I would assume the ULC inferno would be less weight.
-Optional floor on ULC
-with optional floor, the prices are fairly similar
I may have missed a lot, as I have never thought about or looked into the ULC. If I were to choose between the two, I would choose the ULC, just because it is a windscreen in itself.Mar 21, 2010 at 10:57 pm #1589272
That's kind of the way I'm leaning too.
One of the advantages I see with the bushbuddy is that you don't have to really put it together. You can just pop it out of your pot and put the crown on and you're good to go, maybe with an optional piece of foil for a windscreen.
That said, and maybe the reason I'm leaning to it, I'm sure the ULC is tonnes more efficient using alky, my backup.
Neilson Brown Outdoors has some really good reviews of all the three big wood burning stoves for those who are interested. It looks like that moment he's preferring the ULC, though I'm sure it's situational.
I love the idea of all these woodstoves. Especially if you catch a fish or two on the trail.Mar 22, 2010 at 4:43 am #1589308
Jonathan RyanBPL Member
@jkrew81Locale: White Mtns
Another vote for the Tri Ti. I own both and the tri ti is the clear winner as an overall system.Mar 22, 2010 at 4:56 am #1589312
Wow…I'm surprised to see so much support for the Ti-Tri over the very highly rated Bushbuddy. Thanks for all the input – I decided to order the Ti-Tri ULC Inferno. Besides all the points above, last night I emailed Rand (the owner of Trail Designs) with a question about the Inferno. He immediately responded and provided further insight – what a helpful guy!
I'll post my thoughts about the Inferno as soon as I get to use it.
Thanks again everyone!Mar 22, 2010 at 5:30 am #1589313
@ramblerLocale: On the AT in VA
Dennis, I would like to read your update comparison.
I have only used the BB which is an excellent stove.
One major advantage of the Bushbuddy is that it does not get hot on the bottom.
You could put it on a wood table top and it would not burn the table. It does not scar the ground with a burn mark.
I doubt putting a piece of titanium under the fire of the Ti-Tri prevents a burn mark on the ground.
You do have to feed the Bushbuddy to keep it going, but it does not take much fuel and very little ash is left in the bottom when you are done. Wind is not a problem.
The main advantage of any wood stove is that you can keep a good boil going for as long as you have fuel which can be a long time if your camp is in the trees!
Even more fuel efficient than the Bushbudy is the homemade Bushwhacker stove from trailgear, but it is slightly heavier, taller than the BB and leaves a burn mark unless raised off the ground. It is made from empty paint cans available from Home Depot.
http://trailgear.org/Mar 22, 2010 at 6:33 am #1589322
"I doubt putting a piece of titanium under the fire of the Ti-Tri prevents a burn mark on the ground."
It does, actually. Did for me anyway when I used it in this fashion last year. YMMV.Mar 22, 2010 at 7:05 am #1589338
brent driggersBPL Member
@cadyakLocale: southwest georgia
go with the bushbuddyOct 16, 2010 at 5:44 am #1655113
Doug HusBPL Member
@doug-hLocale: Ontario. Canada
Greetings, are there any thoughts on the complexity and # of parts to the Ti-Tri Inferno and the loosing of the parts. The Bushbuddy seems to be a simplier (2 part) design? I believe the Ti-Tri Inferno has 5-7 parts. I'm just thinking of the KISS priciple and Mr Murphy's law, that can be alive and well some days.
I'm fairly convinced that a wood stove is my next evolution.
DougOct 16, 2010 at 6:07 am #1655116
Roger BBPL Member
I do not see the complexity of parts in the Ti Tri a challenge, there are only 2 cones and 2 pieces of mesh, which depending on your setup either pack into the pot or the caddy. To me the choice is between wood only or a mixture of wood and another fuel. Wood only it is the Bushbuddy, a mixture of fuels it is the Ti Tri.
The ti tri is much more efficient when used with alternative fuels such as Esbit and Alcohol, and the Evernew sidewinder is a very user friendly stove when it comes to wood, or alcohol. You will find some info on my blog here and here scroll downOct 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm #1655186
BER —BPL Member
I've not used the Ti-Tri, but the BB works well with wood, alcohol and esbit. Both the MBD miniatomic and the Trangia fit well inside the BB and burn really well. Alcohol can also be poured into the bottom of the BB and burned without a separate alcy stove, though not as efficiently. Esbit works well dropped onto the fire grate in the BB.Oct 16, 2010 at 4:14 pm #1655195
Good discussion so far. We're comparing two excellent products so you really can't go wrong here.
For a few months this summer I owned both a BB Ultra and the Tri-Ti Inferno Sidewinder kit for my 1.3L Evernew pot. I used the BB Ultra 5-10 times and the Tri-Ti just once. Lately most of my trips have been short (1-2 nights) where the extra weight of a wood stove doesn't pay off significantly in fuel savings, so I've been using an alcohol stove for it's simplicity and soot-free ways. I don't really like dealing with soot all over my pot, which is why I now only use a wood stove on longer trips where fuel weight is significant.
The Tri-Ti has the advantage of lighter weight going for it. My BB Ultra weighed 4.9oz whereas the Tri-Ti system is about 3oz. With both, I also carry an alcohol stove as backup. If you go with a bigger Tri-Ti then the weight might be similar, whereas a smaller Tri Ti will be quite a bit lighter than a BB.
With that said, I preferred using the BushBuddy for it's simplicity. It's extremely quick to pull it out, flip the top and you're ready to burn. For me, I found that the simplicity of the BushBuddy outweighed the downside of it's relatively small burn chamber compared to the Tri-Ti. That made it a tough decision….carry the heavier wood stove because I prefer using it? Or carry the Tri-Ti which weighs almost half? Using the BB in alcohol mode also didn't work that well, so I wanted to carry the caldera cone with it, but I couldn't fit that in my pot along with the BB. With soot, wood collection and trying to store everything it was just getting too complicated to use on trips were fuel weight wasn't huge.
I ended up selling the BB Ultra because:
– Only rarely (+3 days) will it save me more fuel than it weighs.
– I don't really like dealing with soot.
– Using alcohol requires carrying a number of other components and that doesn't all fit in my pot.
I still have the Tri-Ti because I like using the caldera cone with the 12-10 alcohol stove and I can't sell just the Tri-Ti. I also like having it as backup and in case I do a longer unsupported trip.
At the end of the day, I don't really like using a wood stove because of the soot and wood collection hassles. It doesn't even pay off in weight savings until about day 3 and I personally won't carry one unless my trip is ~5+ days so that the weight savings are worth the hassle of dealing with soot and wood collection.
What I would like to see is a titanium version of the BB that weighs about the same as the Tri-Ti. A 3oz BushBuddy would be more compelling. Especially if it was easier to use with alcohol. I tried using both BB components in combination with the 12-10 alcohol stove and neither worked very well. With this Ti bushbuddy, they could also make the burn chamber larger by reducing the gap between the outer and inner walls. A 3oz BushBuddy with a larger chamber and a better alcohol mode would be impressive. It would cost an arm and a leg though, and I'd still only carry it on longer trips.Oct 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm #1655198
Regarding using alcohol in the BushBuddy, my problem was that if I used the top part of the BushBuddy then the pot wasn't high enough off of the alcohol stove so the stove was smothered and it also was exposed to the wind so I needed to carry a windscreen. If I used the main body of the bushbuddy with the 12-10 stove inside, it was precarious to set stakes on top of that (to create a gap for the flames) and then set the pot on those. It also burned wrong, as after it got hot the flames would reverse and come out the sides of the 12-10 stove and ignite the secondary combustion of the bush buddy which used a huge amount of fuel in no time.
It seems that some of these problems could be avoided with a different alcohol stove as mentioned, but you'd still want a windscreen if you're using the top part, or you'd need to use stakes to hold the pot off the body if you use the body, and this is a bit sketchy. If the body of the bushbuddy had tiny prongs to hold the pot 1/4" up, then it would be easy to use the body with an alcohol stove but you'd still want a different stove than the 12-10.Oct 16, 2010 at 11:39 pm #1655265
BER —BPL Member
The BB itself can be used as an alcohol stove without needing an additional dedicated alcohol stove.
For donating members to HF: http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19745
For those not on HF, the gist was to add 1 oz alcohol poured directly into the bottom of the BB, light with a stick, drop a 3" diameter disk of thin aluminum down onto the fire grate (I used a disk cut from an old windscreen). The BB is then used without the pot stand. Three spacers (I used rolled aluminum foil bent into the shape of large staples to fit over the edge of the BB) hold the pot 2-3mm off the top edge of the BB.
1oz alcohol boiled 2c 70F water in an Evernew 1L pasta pot in 4:50, and the flame went out at 7:00. This was reproducible within a 10-20 second range on multiple trials. Presumably you could get by on 2/3rds to 3/4ths of an ounce to boil to 2c.
The disk and spacers weighed 4g total.
I am not advocating this as a cooking setup, but it was nice to know that you could use the BB with alcohol directly as a backup if dry wood was scarce, without the need to carry an additional alcohol stove. The disk and 3 spacers take up negligible space.
Another member of HF involved in the trials posted this you tube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Rs-uX_yRg
Note that this was before the idea of using the aluminum disk came up, which significantly prolonged the burn time of 1oz of alcohol.Oct 17, 2010 at 12:01 am #1655267
You idea of using three U shaped spacers is a good one. That sounds a lot more stable than using 2 tent pegs which have a tenancy to roll. This sounds like a good backup alcohol setup for the BB….much better than carrying a separate stove.
Now if only Fritz would make a 3oz Ti version of the BB, perhaps with a slightly larger chamber…then it would be the ultimate long trip stove. I emailed him about it 2 months ago and it sounded like he wasn't working on it very hard so I wouldn't expect anything soon.Oct 17, 2010 at 6:02 am #1655282
I know the Op mentioned specifically the Bushbuddy vs the Ti-Tri Inferno, but I recently purchased a Bushcooker from Four Dog Stoves.
I did alot of research into this and narrowed it down to the Bushcooker after a few weeks of debating it and searching high and low for reviews and first hand accounts.
I went with a Bushcooker LT1 , and so far I could not be happier. I have had it for about 3 months, and have taken it on quite a few overnighters and a few 3 day trips so far. It burns remarkably well with wood, alchohol, or esbit. I use it mostly with wood or alchohol, or a combination of both. Using a Snowpeak 700 I can get 2 cups to boil in about 6-7 minutes depending on conditions, or if using a wider pot such as my MSR stainless steel 1.5L alpine i can get a a boil in about 4-5 minutes and a liter to boil in 6-7.
If your in the market for this kind of stove I would at least look into the Bushcooker before you make your final decision, to give you another stove to compare.Oct 17, 2010 at 12:10 pm #1655352
@retropumpLocale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
I have been using the Ti-Tri SideWinder for a few months now. The outer cone weighs 44g (1.5 oz) for the 2 litre version, and is all we need for burning anything (including canister stoves). No need for the inner cone and mesh unless you are worried about fire scar. More stable, very wind worthy, more versatile and much lighter than the BB…and it fits in your pot if your pot has the right dimensions. Same for the standard Ti-Tri too, except it doesn't fit in your pot. Anyone want to buy a slightly used BushBuddy?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.