Alcohol stoves

[Bubblehead]

I'm looking to get a new stove for my AT section hike next year from Springer to HF. What are the pros and cons of getting an alcohol stove????? Thanks!

[Damn Yankee]

If you decide this is the way to go for you, I am selling a great kit.

[Damn Yankee]

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/113040-Trangia-mini-cook-kit-and-stove?highlight=

[4eyedbuzzard]

Pros and cons alky vs. canister stoves IN MY OPINION. You will get LOTS of differing opinions. Both types of stoves are used successfully by section and thru-hikers. I don't list fuel availability as a factor, as finding alcohol/yellow HEET or iso-butane canisters shouldn't be an issue in towns along the AT during normal hiking season.

Pros:
1) Somewhat lighter weight - but the difference really is pretty marginal. We are taking a couple of ounces. Sgt. Rock did a study on this subject as have others. Sgt. Rock's data is based upon using a large canister, not the smaller one which would likely help the canister's weight per day performance on hikes of less than 1 week intervals between resupply as the tare weight of the canister would be less. Here's Sgt Rock's article http://hikinghq.net/stoves/stove_compare.html
2) Cheaper fuel if this is a concern. Say maybe $2/week alcohol vs $5/week iso-butane? Maybe $75 over the course of a thru-hike.
3) Simplicity - alcohol stoves generally have zero moving parts, no seals or valves to fail etc. But this doesn't mean they are necessarily easier to use than a canister.
4) Quieter - many canister stoves are a bit noisy, such as the Pocketrocket, which lives up to its name.
5) Ease of determining amount of fuel remaining.
6) Less empty container weight. No issues with disposal of used fuel container.
7) More environmentally friendly?

Cons:
1) Not as good in cold and/or windy conditions as canister. Even many alky stove users will switch to canister in winter and/or cold conditions, such as might be experienced in the first month of a thru-hike.
2) More practice needed to be proficient in using. Need to measure out fuel in many stoves. Not as newbie friendly.
3) Less heating value per weight of fuel carried.
4) Takes longer to heat up water (at least twice as long - and maybe much longer in severe conditions).
5) Better suited to just heating water to boiling point (or just under) than any actual cooking. This said, simmer rings are available. Again, practice required.
6) More hazardous - Spilled fuel and the invisible nature of alcohol flame in daylight. I have also seen more people burn themselves using alky stoves than when using canister stoves (including me!).

Having used both, I have pretty much abandoned alcohol [EDIT: especially do to poor performance in the wind even with a windscreen]. The few ounces of extra weight of a canister stove is more than offset by its convenience and better performance. Again, though, this is just MY CHOICE.

[Odd Man Out]

This is a very broad question. Some will say alcohol systems are lighter, but that is misleading. The stove may weigh almost nothing, but the fuel is relatively heavy. With canisters, the fuel is light, but the canister is heavy. The net weight of the cooking system will depend on the type of system, efficiency, how you use it, how often you resupply, etc... Too many variables to generalize either way. Alcohol may be somewhat more available, but canister stoves are so widely used, I doubt that would be a significant issue. Some say alcohol stoves are too slow, but that depends on your expectations (how fast do you want it) and the power of your system. On my hike this summer, my alcohol system had dinner cooked before my buddy's white gas stove could bring a pot to boil. Some will say that alcohol stoves are more dangerous (and they do have risks) but any stove system can be dangerous if not used correctly.

I would say the most significant difference is this: alcohol systems are very diverse and have a steep learning curve - there are hundreds of different designs each with its own advantages and disadvantages (power vs efficiency vs weight vs ease of use, etc...). Also, alcohol stoves are just one part of a system that must work together to be effective. If you are willing to put in the time and effort to select and optimize a system that matches your needs and wants, then it can work well for you. I would say that many of the criticisms of alcohol stoves you are likely to encounter are based on systems that have not been optimized for the needs of the owner. Alcohol systems are best for those willing to invest the time need to sort out all the variables.

On the other hand, the other option selected by most hikers (canister stoves) are all very similar to each other and have very little learning curve (buy a stove, buy a pot, use it). The primary decision you have to make is whether to get a conventional canister stove or a high efficient boiler (e.g. Jetboil). Compared to alcohol stoves, the rest of the variables are relatively subtle.

[BirdBrain]

Alcohol stoves are great IF you are willing to do the work required to acquire a good one that is part of a balanced system.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...=1#post1971636

From what I have seen (certainly not an authoritative study) most do not. Most exaggerate. Many repeat the standard claim (1/2oz of fuel to boil 2 cups). Most systems require closer to 1oz. Reality should be more important than claim.

If you are unwilling to invest the time, get a canister stove. Your results will be better. You do run a greater risk of parts failure (think O-rings, threads, and ignitors).

Most people do not spend the time to make an informed choice. Most say "good enough". Most people prioritize their time differently. Most people are normal.

To summarize. If you are normal and want good results, buy a canister setup. If you are normal and want bad results, just get any ole' alcohol stove without making a huge personal investment of time in study and testing. If you are abnormal, build hundreds of stoves and learn what works and what does not.

[Mags]

On the AT, I don't think it matters.

Fuel is easy to get for both, resupplies are short and open flame bans aren't a consideration. Call it a wash.


In the end, it's just a stove..

[Bubblehead]

Thanks to everyone who replied....seems to me I'll go with the canister stove....I've got the MSR pocket rocket on my REI wish list. Thanks again! Bubblehead

[Damn Yankee]

I've got a Pocket Rocket I could sell. $30 shipped with hard case

[The 3 Beez]

Sorry I can't really help you with a reply for the gas canister stove such as the popular "Pocket Rocket", as I have never used it. One of my experiences is with a Coleman pump type stove which is bullet proof but heavy. The person using it almost burn a shelter down in the Smokies. It caught on fire and gave the people of the much over crowded shelter a thrill and some extra heat. I prefer the Trangia alcohol stove which is good for simmering and you can save some of the unused fuel if you poured too much in it. You can also Yogi some fuel if you get in a pinch which you can't with a canister. Just my personal experience.
I often just boil water for things that just need hot water and save fuel with a simple wood campfire.

[George]

we need a vote for the svea 123 - even if you have to vote from the grave

[Kaptainkriz]

My last few weekend hikes I've been carrying the 123 (602 grams with cup cover and handle). I have a model 400 also, which although a great stove, is just too heavy at 925g.

we need a vote for the svea 123 - even if you have to vote from the grave

[Uncle Joe]

People talk about how much work they are and how you need practice. I don't get that personally. Put the alcohol in, light it, done. I use a Trangia and there just isn't much to it. The only real decisions are what kind of stand are you going to use and the fuel. If you go with Heet (yellow bottle) you'll find it heats water pretty fast. No, not JetBoil fast but plenty fast. I have yet to have to use mine in windy conditions, I'll admit. But I don't see leaving alcohol until I see a need to do so. FWIW, I'm a newbie to both hiking and stoves but I've had zero issues with alcohol so far. I just don't want to use a canister stove and carry tanks that I have to discard later. I may get one later if I expect extreme conditions but until then it's alcohol for me.

[Another Kevin]

Alcohol stoves are great IF you are willing to do the work required to acquire a good one that is part of a balanced system.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...=1#post1971636

From what I have seen (certainly not an authoritative study) most do not. Most exaggerate. Many repeat the standard claim (1/2oz of fuel to boil 2 cups). Most systems require closer to 1oz. Reality should be more important than claim.

If you are unwilling to invest the time, get a canister stove. Your results will be better. You do run a greater risk of parts failure (think O-rings, threads, and ignitors).

Most people do not spend the time to make an informed choice. Most say "good enough". Most people prioritize their time differently. Most people are normal.

To summarize. If you are normal and want good results, buy a canister setup. If you are normal and want bad results, just get any ole' alcohol stove without making a huge personal investment of time in study and testing. If you are abnormal, build hundreds of stoves and learn what works and what does not.

There are more or less three tiers of alcohol stove-manship. BirdBrain overlooks the middle tier.

(1) Build a SuperCat. Anyone with a cat food can and an office paper punch can make one. Not the most efficient stove in the world, but it works. For weekend trips, it'll be lighter than a canister rig, even with its inefficiency, because it weighs next to nothing and the fuel weight for a couple or three boils is less than a canister weighs. And there's nothing to break! If by some mischance you stomp on the stove (I've done this, don't ask how...), you can get a can of cat food for less than a buck (free if you know someone with a cat), and make a replacement in minutes.

(2) Build one of the proven designs that are out there that don't require a totally insane amount of fiddling. The ones at Zen Stoves and the Penny Stove 2.0 are popular. Again, there is very little to go wrong. (Or get a Trangia or Vargo.) No issues with O-rings, needle valves, threads, ignitors, and so on. The efficiency is "not bad" - not BirdBrain's level, but a lot better than a Supercat.

(3) Go the BirdBrain, Mark Jurey, Tetkoba, Zelph, ... route and start tinkering. That way lies madness. It's a lot of fun, but it's indeed crazy.

A large number of thru-hikers settle on (1) - the very simplest of alcohol stoves, and to heck with efficiency, because you're resupplying often enough that fuel isn't a major contributor to pack weight.

I've sort of settled on (2) because gross inefficiency Bothers me and because I like having my simmer ring. There's nothing like a fresh hot steam-baked muffin on a lazy morning. I've been using a Penny Stove 2.0 for 3-4 years now, doing my clueless weekend thing. The clueless weekending has added up to at least a few hundred trail miles, including the 138 miles of the Northville-Placid and 33 climbs of the Catskill high peaks (including four in full-on winter and a few more in shoulder-season snow). This is how it looked a year and a half ago - and if it was "well used" then, it's surely not gotten any less battered!

The whole stove set up by Kevin Kenny, on Flickr

(3) is really for people with a competitive spirit who want to have the lightest and most efficient stove that a builder can make. I started down that road and turned back quickly. I'll do my tinkering with maps (and unrelated to hiking, with computers) and let others tinker with stoves. I'll use their results the next time I need to build a stove. That might not be for a while, my three- or four-year-old Penny is still going strong.

A caveat. I've never hiked in a place with a fire ban. You need a manufactured stove in those places. And I don't do extended trips where I'd have to melt my drinking water. You really need a naphtha-fired stove like the Whisperlite if you do extended travel in deep winter, because your fuel consumption goes up tenfold. (And I'd not recommend a Whisperlite for anything else, because I value reliability. You can always improvise something to burn alcohol.)

[lonehiker]

When I finally switched to an alcohol stove over a decade ago, from white gas stove, I have never looked back. Have used the same stove, hundreds of times, the entire time. The only time I use a canister stove is when the feds (or state) use their dictatorial power over me. Would say that the advice you get on stoves is somewhat faddish. Thirty years ago would have been white gas, then 10-15 years ago (or whatever) it was alcohol. Now it seems the trend is moving towards canister stoves. Truth is you really can't go wrong with either. But, although this may be changing a bit, fuel for alcohol stoves is still the most readily available fuel especially once you graduate to less popular trails.

[BirdBrain]

I accept AK's assessment. He is right on 2 counts.

1) There are many degrees of success in building a good system. I over simplified things in an attempt to not give my usual wordy post.

2) I am crazy.

[Slo-go'en]

IMOHO, the Anti-gravity Caldera cone system is the best alcohol stove set up there is. Simple, light, very stable and very efficient. The only caveat is the cone must be matched to your pot and it's only good for boiling water.

Canister stoves are quick and easy to use. If you have a fry pan of some sort you can do things beyond boiling water, like making pancakes. The main disadvantage is you have to be sure you have a spare fuel canister on hand when the one in use starts getting low (as it's hard to tell when it will go out) and then carry the empty until it can be disposed of properly. That's why you find so many almost empty canisters in hiker boxes, people what to replace their fuel before it runs out and while still in town.

[Odd Man Out]

I'm sure I fit into AK'S category 3 as well except that it isn't necessarily about being the lightest. I could go lighter but I would give up features I like about my current system so there is not the incentive for me to change. I have experimented with some major overhauls but they weren't going in the direction I wanted so I'm am sticking with some minor evolutions. But I suppose AK is correct that a novice could get into an alcohol system that works for him/her without all the angst us hard-core hobbiests go through. But having done all that research, I could set someone up with my system for not much money. Except for the stove (which isn't all that hard to make) my system is cheap to buy or trivial to make. If someone really wanted to try it, I could send them an extra stove.

[Venchka]

we need a vote for the svea 123 - even if you have to vote from the grave

SVEA 123. First stove. Still have it. Still working.
Coleman Peak 1 Apex. Second stove. Same comments as 123.

Wayne



Sent from somewhere around here.

[floid]

I'm a noob and have a caldera fosters setup. Couldn't be easier. Very reliable too. However, my son has a canister setup. I don't know the name but very minimalistic. When considering 5-7 days of 2x daily cooks and coffee, his is actually slight lighter.

I wouldn't like not knowing how much fuel is left, which keeps me with alcohol.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk