Primus TiLite vs. Jetboil

In a way, you're talking about different classes of stoves. The Tilite is a stove that an ultralighter might carry. The Jetboil is a stove that a "traditional" backpacker might carry. In other words, the Jetboil is a heavier stove and is a stove that most people on this site would have no interest in.

In your case, where wind is an issue, the Tilite might not work well even though it's a great choice in terms of weight. It might be worth it to carry the Jetboil since, as you mentioned, it does have some wind resistance.

An MSR Reactor, which is even heavier that the Jetboil, offers even more wind resistance, but, as I say, it's quite heavy and also quite expensive. You'd have to decide how much weight you're willing to carry and how much cash you'd be willing to part with.

There are other choices that would be wind resistant, like a remote canister stove. The stoves above are all top mounted canister stoves (where the stove just screws into the canister). With a remote canister stove, the stove has legs and sits on the ground, and the canister is placed some distance from the stove. A remote canister set up allows one to use a full windscreen without risk of heating the canister (and thereby risking an explosion). An example of a remote canister stove would be the MSR Windpro whose very name describes its intended niche.

You could also use something like a full Trangia alcohol stove or a remote tank "white gas" type stove, both of which tend to do well in the wind. Both, however, tend to be heavy.

Hope that helps,

HJ

wait for the new jetboils coming out next year … they should be lighter or cheaper depending on the model

the nice thing about jetboils is that they are idiot proof and work … which is why so many climbers use them

ueli steck the "swiss machine", probably the best light and fast alpinist in the world, using a jetboil …

this animal solos the matterhorn in 2 hrs, and the north face of the eiger in 3 hrs

things people have done with their jetboil for hawt fresh milk …

I have seen too much :P

Thanks for the responses guys. I think I'll try holding out for the new Jetboils in the spring. Looks like they have some pretty good offerings.

Eric,

Have you got any links that might give me a preview of new offerings from Jetboil? I looked on the Jetboil site, but I didn't see anything.

HJ

here it is … cheaper and lighter … or not so cheap and even lighter .. lol

http://www.dailyhiker.com/news/new-stoves-from-jetboil-for-spring-2011/

For those interested in saving every ounce of weight possible, the Jetboil Sol will be the go-to backpacking stove. Available in two materials, the ultra-compact stove weighs a scant 10.5 ounces for the aluminum version (Sol Al) and even less (9 ounces) for the titanium model (Sol Ti). Even with the ultralight classification, the Sol will perform in even the toughest conditions. Put to the test in New Hampshire’s White Mountains, the Sol will give you consistent heat down to 15 degree Fahrenheit using its Thermo-Regulate burner technology.

Eric:

Thanks for the link. Very cool! A Ti Jetboil. I wonder what that will run.

HJ

Jim

It looks like the price for the titanium Sol is going to be $150, the aluminum is $120, and the Zip will be $70 according to some other websites.

I think I'll go for a simple design like the Coleman F1 using credit card points, then pick up a new Jetboil if I decide I really need one.

Now to decide on a pot…:)

Here’s something to think about:

“When adding the weight savings from fuel efficient operation, Jetboil is without rival for fast and lightweight use.”

The validity of this claims depends on the situation: for trips where you are boiling 15+ liters of water in cold and windy conditions, they are probably valid. In most other situtations (boiling less water, or in calm conditions), then they probably are not valid. In warmer and less windy conditions (or when using a reasonably effective wind screen), you may have to boil more than 15 liters in order for the Jetboil Stove to be the most fuel-efficient system (in terms of system weight) of all the options.

Thus, we leave it to the reader to consider their own circumstances, design their own cook setup, and calculate at what point (liters boiled) the Jetboil Stove’s increased efficiency compensates for its additional weight.

Entire Article – http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/jetboil_stove_review.html

Thanks Justin.

It's a real minefield to try to figure out what is actually the lightest weight set up. Is it really lighter to carry a more efficient but heavier stove? It's so dependent on weather, cooking style, frequency of cooking, number of persons in one's party, length of trip, frequency of re-supply etc. However, I do appreciate the link. Efficiency is always appropriate to try to figure into the mix.

HJ

> When adding the weight savings from fuel efficient operation, Jetboil
> is without rival for fast and lightweight use.

Marketing spin, unsupported by any facts. Great stuff, spin.

I did the calculations based on careful testing (the articles are on the BPL web site), and I suggest that the claim is pure waffle, and wrong, until you have used a couple of full canisters. By that stage different factors enter the game. Sure, the fuel savings are real, but so are the weight costs of a Jetboil vs a light upright and light pot.

But, they want to sell their product, which is understandable.

The weight of a light windscreen around any stove is equally trivial, and thoroughly to be recommended. You can safely ignore the lawyers' bleatings provided you make sure you can touch the canister without an 'ouch'. The canisters are rated to 50 C.

Cheers

I use a Primus ETA Packlite as my primary Winter stove when I have to melt snow for water. It comes with a 1.2L heat-exchanger pot that weighs 9.3 oz, but I often use a regular 1.3L Evernew Ti pot that weighs 4.8 oz because it's more compact and lighter.

Burn tests have led me to budget 60g PPPD (per-person-per-day) fuel with the heat-exchanger pot and 70g PPPD fuel with the regular pot. I would need 13 person-days in the field before the fuel savings offset the weight penalty of the heat exchanger. YMMV.

An exception to the calculation above occurs when I can end up carrying fewer canisters for the trip. E.g., If it takes 0.95 canisters with the heat exchanger pot and, say, 1.1 canisters with a regular pot for a trip, then I'm better off with a single canister and heat-exchanger pot than two canisters and a regular pot.