Forum Replies Created
- Jan 16, 2019 at 8:00 am #3573343Jan 16, 2019 at 7:40 am #3573341
@danepacker a big thumbs up – DIY wind pants are a very easy project.Jan 16, 2019 at 7:38 am #3573340
I think this thread is a great example where some self-moderation of the community can be accomplished with a reasonable understanding of and respect for each other.
Monte’s replies seem reasonable to us as moderators, we’ve been discussing this thread offline in our slack channel.
Hey, so … fishing reels?
And – don’t say “nips”. It offends some people.
I read a great quote today from a friend of mine:
“In 2019, I’m not accepting apologies. Only changed behavior.”Jan 16, 2019 at 7:12 am #3573336
I would think that an R-value of 2 would be fine for most of us during the “summer” – say, July 4 to mid-August in “most” of the CONUS.
R2 should be OK down into what, ground temp of mid-30s?
Count me in for an Uberlite! The comfort:weight ratio is just too irresistible considering the number of nights I spend sleeping on the ground* during this time period.
*Hammock campers: settle down.Jan 16, 2019 at 7:02 am #3573335
I like @iago’s advice – any cheap 100-200 wt fleece pant will be just fine. I’d use these as long johns, and skip a thin base layer, so your 3-layer pant system would be the fleece pant, the Prana’s (I love these pants too!), and the outer Patagonia pant.Jan 16, 2019 at 3:51 am #3573318
@mr_squishy The Trek “Bushwhackers” were a gem. I miss mine as well. I regret selling very few things, but I regret selling those. The closest I came after I sold them was a set of fat-but-not-fat-enough Dynafit’s at 130cm that I mounted w/Dynafit bindings for lace-up plastic mountaineering boots that had a Dynafit mount on them. I used a Dremel to make my own fish scales on them, then used skins for steeper terrain and stripped the skins off for sustained downhill.
ca. 2004, above the treeline in the Wyoming Beartooths:Jan 14, 2019 at 6:14 am #3573080
Vance – yes – the first one. Each wattage value represents a particular test performed at some level of output as controlled by a fixed position on a fuel valve adjustment handle.
Here’s how I calculate gross wattage:
W = mass of fuel used in test ⨉ standard heat of combustion of the fuel ÷ test durationJan 14, 2019 at 4:24 am #3573070
I crunched some data to recreate Jon’s estimate graphs above about how stove output power (gross wattage) affects efficiency and boil times. This data was generated using a needle-valve canister stove, standard protocol as described in the StoveBench article.
And gross wattage vs. StoveBench Score:
Jan 13, 2019 at 5:45 pm #3572987
- This reply was modified 3 days, 6 hours ago by Ryan Jordan.
I can speak anecdotally regarding the conditions this tent was in, we were both on the same trek and had a variety of different shelters in the same conditions, including a Duplex, a few Hexamid/Plexamids, and a few traditional mids.
Our shelters probably faced winds gusting up to about 45-50 mph – or whatever was strong enough to knock me off balance when walking. I didn’t bring a wind meter on this trip, but I often do so I feel like I can estimate winds pretty good.
In observing the Stratospire vs. the Duplex, I feel that the Stratospire was more stable, and quieter, by quite a bit. To me, the Duplex seems more like a below the treeline shelter, and the Stratospire is more suitable for mountain weather.
Both tents have a lot of fabric to catch wind, but the Stratospire has more structure to stabilize it.
Again, this is just a quick Flash review based on preliminary use for a few days, keep that in mind. But we have lots (years) of experience with the Duplex and it’s not hard to see how the storm resistance of these two tents compare when they are pitched side by side in bad weather.Jan 13, 2019 at 5:42 am #3572958
I take monthly contacts with a case and a small amount of saline plus one backup pair. I have been doing this a while so I don’t need a mirror. I don’t bring a back up pair of glasses.
I’ve done the same for the past 20+ years, with one exception: I do bring a backup pair of glasses. And, I’ve never used them! I also bring a pair of reading glasses, and I do use those all the time, and keep them accessible throughout the day in a pocket. I like the little foldup reading glasses, and have found them to be durable enough without the (heavy) case.Jan 12, 2019 at 5:52 pm #3572869
I’ve been experimenting with trekking skis since about 1988. They’ve been around a lot longer, with roots in Mongolia, and more recently in Scandinavia.
The ability to squeeze performance out of them depends primarily on your skiing ability, the skin inset and quality (e.g., balance between grip and glide, resistance to icing), float surface area, and some camber. I’d argue that metal edges and boot/binding are only secondary performance factors – for trekking at least.
I use the BD Glidelite 127s with universal bindings, Altra Lone Peak Mids, Forty Below Light Energy overboots. For me, this is a deep backcountry powder tool for low- to moderate-angle terrain, but will be useful for only low-angle terrain until your skiing ability improves.
Better for winter bushwhacking when compared to long skis.
Better than snowshoes for deep winter powder.
Better than traditional ski gear for long days/long miles because you can use more comfortable footwear.
And they are super fun in rolling terrain – you can cover a LOT of miles compared to snowshoes, esp. on the return trip back to the car.
They may be perceived to have a narrow niche but the conditions in which you can get a lot out of them will increase as your skiing ability with them increases.
I love mine and really enjoy my setup.
For me, the bottom line is that it’s a really fun way to travel in deep powder, and still wear trail running shoes – which means warm feet and less fatigue/foot pain.Jan 11, 2019 at 11:43 pm #3572767
How could any tent get a full review after only 8 days with the thing?
That’s why it’s just a Flash Review, and not a Performance Review.Jan 6, 2019 at 4:18 am #3571741
@jonfong – sample size is *very* important! It’s probably the elephant in the room for most kitchen-counter stove-testing enthusiasts and cottage/garage stove makers.
The short answer is that 2 is an absolute bare minimum – IF you have instrumentation with good measurement resolution. Two samples tell you qualitatively that your method might be OK.
Three samples are required for rudimentary statistical analysis, and 6 are required for rigorous statistics that have a believable standard deviation.
If your measurement accuracy is not great, the sample size may need to go up in order to get a valid average.
I don’t get too worked up with people not having fancy instruments when I’m reviewing others’ stove tests, but I do wish they’d provide repetitive samples and disclose their statistical data so we all have a feel for how much scatter there is in the tests. I’ve purposely performed rudimentary, poorly-measured tests in the field under a range of conditions (ie not a controlled environment), and then use that scattered data to ballpark my probably low and high fuel needs for a trip. That’s a very valuable exercise for any stove enthusiast.Jan 4, 2019 at 8:35 am #3571424
It’s sort of a feature (insert smiley crying face here) but the decision is more practical.
Pages are aggressively cached for non-logged in users. It speeds up their load times quite a lot. It’s good for business and increases ad revenues.
We’re moving away from network ad revenues, which is awesome for both you and me. Read the Year in Review for more info.
I know, I know. It’s a barge, a bit slow to move. But move we will. Thanks for sticking with us.Jan 4, 2019 at 8:20 am #3571423
Maybe try a pit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kykjYEm4I7MJan 4, 2019 at 3:37 am #3571392
The total system weight comparisons I’ve done, both at trailhead weight and end-of-outing weight, show that fuel & fuel container make a huge difference in practical efficiency.
Yes, for sure – this is the kind of analysis that needs to be done in comparison reviews, and information about “how to choose a stove” etc.Jan 4, 2019 at 3:34 am #3571389
I do not agree with the full throttle protocol. It is probably the easiest and perhaps the only way to objectively test various stoves, though. But, as you know, turning the heat down can save as much as 30% of the fuel you would use on high.
I totally agree. Once we have a full throttle benchmark, we can evaluate from there how to optimize the systems accordingly.
Some canister stoves cannot be turned down to a slow burn. Example: the MSR Reactor.
Right, as is true with most pressure-regulated stoves like the Reactor. More accurately, the range of throttle is limited at the high end.
Some stoves simply do not produce a lot of heat (example: JetBoil Sol) and would be penalized by the time to boil yet produce hot water quickly with a minimum of fuel in the field as designed.
And therein lies the beauty of the StoveBench Score – it rewards efficiency. Although some “stoves simply don’t produce a lot of heat” (which isn’t so great in adverse conditions), “stoves that don’t lose a lot of heat” is even better.
Pressure, however, WILL effect the high settings you are using.
Yes, for sure. That’s why it’s really important to start with a canister temp at a consistent temperature, it levels the playing field a bit and rewards stoves with pressure regulation, which is a very good design feature to improve cold weather performance and extend canister life (# boils) without *as much* need for manual control and monitoring of the valve.
As you discussed, a water bath to stabilize the canister fuel temp would help. Typically in a lab setting, this would be a constant flow of some Temp of water, but difficult to set up in the kitchen labs.
Yeah, I thought about adding this to the protocol, but eventually canned it for exactly that reason. I want people to be able to come up with StoveBench Scores on their own and have it be as reasonably comparable to this protocol as much as possible.
Anyway, this is an excellent try at standardizing the testing. Thanks!
Thank you, great feedback!Jan 4, 2019 at 2:22 am #3571377
you cannot use them to compare stoves using different fuels
Well you can but the solid fuel/alcohol guys may not feel good about it 😂
But we can cater to them by noting the F divided by system weight values. A canister stove plus the empty weight of a canister is much heavier than many alcohol stove, windscreen, pot support, and fuel storage bottle combos.Jan 3, 2019 at 11:43 pm #3571350
@blueklister: We’re using MSR IsoPro 227g net weight canisters in all tests. Mainly because they’re the only ones I could afford to send to a gas chromatography lab for analyzing impurities (they have less than 4% n-butane which is a really good purity for consumer grade gas).
I’m hoping to do that analysis at some point on all of the gas brands, but we gotta save up a little cash for that one, the tests aren’t cheap.
The gross weight of these canisters (canisters + fuel) doesn’t vary by more than about +/- 2 g. Some of that may be in the retail pricing labels :D I’ll have a better handle on the empty weight variability as soon as I start emptying all these things and weigh them! But the average of six empty MSR 227 net canisters that I have here now is 150.1 g, with a StDev% of 0.6% – and that could be fuel residual. Very difficult to empty these all the way.Jan 3, 2019 at 11:38 pm #3571349
@bzhayes: the formula actually doesn’t depend on boil time, elevation, etc. – just a heating differential between two temps over the course of some time interval. It’s normalized on a per-degree T basis.
Ice water and boiling were chosen as the two reference points because they are pretty easy to validate with consumer grade thermometers, or for estimation purposes, even without thermometers at all – just prepare ice water, start with that. Wait for the water to boil, and end with that.
I looked at calcs involving efficiency (based on the technical definition, see below) divided by time to boil but the physical description of that parameter no longer has a strong basis in evaluating the reality of stove performance, which (defined here) equals output divided by input. At some level, of course, it becomes a semantics debate.
Also, fun fact about efficiency: from a technical standpoint, efficiency is defined by the theoretical amount of fuel used in a test (if all of the heat in the fuel was transferred to the water) divided by the actual amount of fuel used in a test. For the 25 canister stoves we are reviewing right now for the gear guide, we’ve measured efficiencies from 20% all the way up to about 50%. There’s a lot of variability here, and this is where stove design and system design really come into play. We’ll present this data in the upcoming gear guide as well.Jan 3, 2019 at 9:16 pm #3571302
Hey Barry – I have protocols for solid fuel, alcohol, wood, integrated canister stoves, inverted canister stoves, and pump-pressurized liquid fuel stoves, and have performed tests with all of these types of stoves. The protocol is totally adaptable to any stove type (see the “General Test Procedure” section above).
I need to do some more rigorous statistical testing and tweaking to the alcohol and wood stove protocols before publishing them, though. The other protocols are pretty dialed and we’ll be releasing those as each of the respective stove gear guides is getting ready to be published.Jan 3, 2019 at 8:38 pm #3571286
Eric, all good points.
The choice of titanium was made for the standard protocol because Ti is considered the gold standard of lightweight cooking pot materials, esp. in our community. The choice of the Ti pot used in this control test was motivated by its geometry – it’s W:H ratio is about 1.3. With 500 ml of water in it (the amount of water used in the control test) the water column W:H ratio is about 2.3. I didn’t want to use the common “tall and narrow” solo cookware because it makes the system even less efficient. As a comparison, a Toaks 850 with 500 ml of water in it has a water column W:H ratio of about 1.3. It’s gonna be fun to compare StoveBench Scores between these two pots :)
What can be done from here, now that we have control test data, is run tests to compare different pot geometries, different materials, etc., and compare those StoveBench Scores to the control score, and get a much better handle on how these types of changes improve or reduce the performance of the cook system.
Thermal measurements on the bottom of the pot in these tests (where the stoves were turned up to full throttle) revealed no major differences in the size of the hot spot on pots of this size (5 in dia), with one exception – the little tiny-burner stoves like the BRS3000t, when they are running at a low throttle.
So we’ll probably see less difference for Ti-vs-Al with smaller pots, higher throttles, and larger burners. It will be cool to actually run those tests and look at the differences quantitatively, though.Jan 2, 2019 at 6:16 pm #3571095
Take a look at the Boker CC knife. I picked one up a few months ago, and it’s much nicer than the Backnife. The latter is tiny, but they just don’t give you much cutting power when you need it. The Boker has a pretty unique foldout design with a decent grip, and is up to some more robust cutting tasks. Not to the level of the little Ladybug, but superior to most CC knives I’ve used.Jan 2, 2019 at 8:27 am #3571055
Yes! It’s on our 2019 editorial calendar!Jan 2, 2019 at 8:25 am #3571054
If your needs are:
- cutting thin cord;
- opening plastic packaging;
- desperate need to save weight on your spreadsheet;
Then these little knives are OK.
But if you subscribe to the idea that a knife is somewhat of an emergency/safety/survival item, then they seem desperately inadequate to me.
My preference for an ultralight knife when I need something for striking a firesteel or cleaning a trout or slicing food is a Spyderco Ladybug or the neat and cheap Opinel folder.
For a survival / firebuilding tool, I use the small neck knife shown in this winter firebuilding video.
For “bushcrafting” (mostly just entertainment for me), when I’m building a shelter with dead wood and need to hack limbs off of trees or I’m batoning firewood > 1.5″ in dia, I’m going to opt for a decent knife, which incidentally, is a lot more fun to use than a little credit card thingy!