May 18, 2010 at 12:06 pm #1259092
Addie BedfordBPL Member
Companion forum thread to:May 18, 2010 at 12:41 pm #1610934
This looks like a great stove. However, Primus are now beginning to market more and more duo valve stoves, for use with both Lindall valve and Camping Gaz cannisters (not yet on their website, however, but I have had them in my hands in a shop). It should be very easy to market a duo valve version of the Spider Express as well. They already have the crucial connector part from another heavier duo valve remote. What is keeping them?
WillemMay 18, 2010 at 4:19 pm #1611005
George MatthewsBPL Member
Good review, Roger!
Quite a familiar looking burner for someone like me who has a EtaPower EF (Trail version). I've wondered about trying to use mine without the integrated stand/screen. Maybe not.
Thanks.May 18, 2010 at 9:57 pm #1611123
Tony BeasleyBPL Member
@tbeasleyLocale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle
Nice idea, what took them so long.
TonyMay 19, 2010 at 2:54 am #1611155
>Nice idea, what took them so long.
and how long will it take them to figure out that the flame control knob is totally inaccessible when the canister is inverted?
May 19, 2010 at 4:23 am #1611160
M GBPL Member
Is this stove available from any US online retailers yet?May 19, 2010 at 10:00 am #1611238
S. SteeleBPL Member
@sbsteeleLocale: North Central New Jersey
Boil time (claimed) 4.5 min
For how many ounces of water?
StuartMay 19, 2010 at 10:34 am #1611253
For the life of me cannot understand why backpacking stove manufactures insist on promoting canister on top stoves when the remote canister design seems to be inherently superior. Tony has shown that it is possible to make a light, efficient remote canister stove. Please Snow Peak, Primus, MSR, etc., I know you read BackpackingLight, cut Tony a royalty check or hire him as a designer, and give us a decent lightweight remote canister stove. Believe me, it would sell.May 19, 2010 at 3:25 pm #1611392
Tony BeasleyBPL Member
@tbeasleyLocale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle
Getting paid to design stoves, if only, why should they pay me as I post my designs on the web and they can take them for free. I was first to use aluminum for the mixing tube and I have noticed this has been catching on too.
I vaguely recall another manufacturer makes a similar stove to the Primus Express Spider but much lighter version but I am unable to find the link and I am not sure which forum I saw it on, If was on BPL I hope some one can bring the link up again.
While searching for a the stove I came across this China stoves site and it blew me away, 28 pages of camping stoves made in China and links to manufactures.
TonyMay 19, 2010 at 7:32 pm #1611511
As Tony has mentioned, it is possible to use aluminium carefully in the flame. In my article on the Brunton Stove Stand I recommended using copper as the heat shunt, but recently I have been using thicker aluminium. The density is sufficiently lower that is lighter to use a suitably thicker cross-section of aluminium than the copper.
> 28 pages of camping stoves made in China and links to manufactures
Yeah, but actually buying from them can be … difficult. :-)
You can buy some of the Fire Maple and Bulin stoves through http://www.de-maritime.com using Paypal. Very cheap. (Disclosure: I have chatted with the Australian owner of the company by email. I have no commercial involvement.)
CheersMay 19, 2010 at 7:35 pm #1611513
> how long will it take them to figure out that the flame control knob is
> totally inaccessible when the canister is inverted?
Ah … I don't understand what you mean? In the pic you show the flame control is at the left of the base of the burner.
Even if you are referring to the valve on the canister, I don't agree that it is inaccessible. I have been using inverted canisters with my own designs for some years now, and not had any trouble with operating the valve.
CheersMay 19, 2010 at 7:36 pm #1611514
> Boil time (claimed) 4.5 min
> For how many ounces of water?
All measurements are normalised to one litre of water going from 20 C to 100 C.
cheersMay 19, 2010 at 7:44 pm #1611518
> the remote canister design seems to be inherently superior.
Well, no, not really. The advantage of the UL upright canister stove is that it is LIGHT. The lightest one on the commercial market at present weighs 48 grams (eg the DE-116) and costs about $35.
There is NO WAY you can get a commercially-produced remote canister stove that light or that cheap. To be sure, Tony's SUL remote is lighter, but you would never market that to the clumsy masses! Death and disaster!
There is a secondary problem which I am sure Tony knows about, and so might many other users of light remote canister stoves. When they get LIGHT, they tend to skitter around a bit as the hose can be a bit stiff. Again, not for the masses.
CheersMay 20, 2010 at 9:14 am #1611688
I was very interested when I first heard about the Spider only to be dissappointed when I saw it. I could not believe that Primus would expect me to pay $$$ for a stove in which the designed mode of operation has the flame control knob underneath the inverted canister, buried in the grass/dirt/snow. Sure I could lift the canister every time I wanted to adjust the flame, but why should I have to?
That is why I made my own stove (picture above) which has the flame control at the base of the burner, with just an on/off control at the canister. It came out lighter to boot, but that was not the main motivating factor.May 21, 2010 at 1:25 am #1612073
> I could lift the canister every time I wanted to adjust the flame, but why should I have to?
Good question. My answer is that I don't adjust the flame very often, but it obviously is not a perfect solution.
> I made my own stove (picture above) which has the flame control at the base of
> the burner, with just an on/off control at the canister.
You can't say that without quoting the weight! Enquiring minds want to know!
Btw, that's rather neat. What's the burner head? And the hose?
More generally – I agree entirely with you about the need for a dual valve system. The Coleman Peak Apex II (kero, Shellite) had this ages ago, but they didn't follow through with the concept. A pity. None of the commercial remote canister stoves have this either – yet.
More recently both Tony B and I have been working on dual-control remote canister stoves, with interesting results. Yes, exactly as you said: an on/off valve at the canister and a control valve at the stove after the preheat section. What is interesting is that each of us three have come up with a quite different way of doing it.
PS: I see you quote Lord Kelvin. I too have used that quote in many places!May 21, 2010 at 8:48 am #1612156
I posted details about this stove here a few months back. In summary, the burner/mixer tube/jet/valve assembly is from a regular F1 Spirit and the hose/canister connector from the Brunton Stove Stand. The other parts I have fabricated myself. Total weight is 155g. I have been using it this spring and have been pleased with the performance.
I too have a physics background, and am always wary of any claims that are not backed up by measured (or calculated) results! I have made a number of calculations and graphs about gas canisters when used upright which may be of interest to you – link in my profile.May 21, 2010 at 3:29 pm #1612291
155 g is good. It looks robust. How well do the pot supports work, with what weight pot?
Yes, I have seen your web site and the graphs. Would you be willing to share the equations you used to calculate the graphs?
firstname.lastname@example.orgMay 22, 2010 at 1:24 am #1612456
The pot supports are made from titanium tent stakes. They are quite strong enough to support a pot containing 1 litre. I've not tried more.
I'll send you a spreadsheet when I have a comprehendable explanation to go along with it
StuartMay 26, 2010 at 6:32 am #1613973
Jonathan ShefftzBPL Member
@jshefftz1Locale: Western Mass.
Thanks, very helpful review.
But just to clarify, the weight difference between this and an Eta PackLite — stripped down to just the stove — is only 39g (1.4oz), which would be narrowed even more if the PackLite piezo were removed (via its attachment screws).
The Spider would still be significantly more compact though.May 26, 2010 at 11:06 am #1614066
"I vaguely recall another manufacturer makes a similar stove to the Primus Express Spider but much lighter version but I am unable to find the link and I am not sure which forum I saw it on, If was on BPL I hope some one can bring the link up again."
The lightest I know of that is similar to the Spider is the Edelrid Opilio at 170-178g. Very similar to the Spider but with the valve horizontal to the canister, should make it easier to use inverted.May 26, 2010 at 11:35 am #1614076
Jeffs ElevenBPL Member
Wow, you guys are taking the valve thing to a new level.
its not hard at all to turn the valve the way it is. I hadn't even noticed it until I read it here. Can't spare the extra second? How often are you adjusting the flame anyway? I get it going the way I want then set the canister down, only messing with it again to turn it off, or if fuel is a little low.May 26, 2010 at 11:44 am #1614083
My main preference for the Opilio is of course that it's lighter!
As for the valve, it's not just adjusting it that is potentially awkward with the Spider, it's also that the canister sits somewhat on its side rather than fully inverted – maybe that's not a problem in practical terms, I don't know I haven't actually used either of these yet.Jun 4, 2010 at 4:00 pm #1616835
> it's also that the canister sits somewhat on its side rather than fully inverted
> – maybe that's not a problem in practical terms
No problem in my experience. I just lean the upside-down canister against one of my joggers. ;-)
It may be that the last teaspoon or two of liquid fuel does not reach the outlet every time and so comes out as gas. Tough. I can handle that.
CheersAug 11, 2010 at 3:19 pm #1636831
Robert DeMoroBPL Member
Will this stove handle smaller pots well, such as the solo Snow Peak Ti-Mini, etc??Oct 20, 2010 at 3:10 am #1656210
I assume from the photographs that this stove is safe to use with the canister inverted. What are the advantages/disadvantages of doing this? I assume that it produces more heat in cold conditions, but chews through fuel more quickly?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.