I'm new to the Backpacking, so looking for a stove. There seem to be many types, brands and models.

Looking for a complete kitchen that will cook for 2 people. Most of the time it will be weekend hikes (1 - 2 night) but could be up to 2 weeks.

Most likely we will be able to use wood, but dew to fire bans, we may have to use other types of fuel and rain could cause problems with wood.

If you were starting from stratch, with a large-ish bugdget, what would you get?

Edit: I also want to keep it light weight...

Edited by bachamp on 02/09/2010 20:08:09 MST.

I suggest a Caldera Cone Tri-Ti sold by Titanium Goat. This would let you use wood, denatured alcohol, or esbit for fuel.

+1 on the TiTri

I never thought I would go that direction but the Caldera Cone is an elegant design. It is now my solo rig.

By the way it is made by these guys:

http://www.traildesigns.com/

Keep in mind that alcohol stoves are more weight efficient in the short term, but if you're going for a week or more, canister stoves like Snow Peak Giga Power and MSR Pocket Rocket come out ahead for weight and performance.

What is the difference between:

Caldera Ti-Tri™ ULC and Inferno Titanium Stove Systems
Caldera Ti-Tri™ and Inferno Titanium Stove Systems

AND

For 2 people, how big should the pot be?

I think the ULC is more compact.

http://traildesigns.com/caldera-ulc.html

"The cone is shorter and uses a pair of Titanium skewer stakes to support the pot at the most efficient height over the stove. (pot and stakes not included)"

The page also lists the pots and mugs that will work with it.

Mike

EDIT: Here's a comparison chart: http://www.traildesigns.com/comparison.html

Edited by rcmike on 02/09/2010 21:53:00 MST.

For two people I would probably go with the 900 or the 1100. It depends on if you just need the volume to boil water or you need the volume for water and food in the pot at the same time.

All:

Saw the question about what the difference is between the standard Ti-Tri and the ULC (and of course the Inferno variations). The "shorter to make it pack better" answer is correct. The standard Ti-Tri is a bit more fuel efficient, wind resistant, and stable, while the ULC is more packable.

However, what I wanted to introduce at this point is the Comparision Chart I built a couple weeks ago. Check it out here:

http://www.traildesigns.com/comparison.html

Let me know what you think of this and if it helps.

Rand :-)

Rand,

As I understand it, the salient differences are:

* The basic calderas enclose the pot within the windscreen

* With a ULC, most of the pot sticks up above the top of the windscreen.

* The ULC is made for fewer pots -- the website says it requires a "deep" pot. Is the reason for that just so the windscreen will fit within the pot when packed, or is there some other reason?

The rest of the things -- efficiency, stability, packability, etc, flow from the above.

Have I got it about right?

Thanks,
Bob

Like the chart, just a few suggestions.

-Place like items together.
~you have Alcohol stoves on one end and The Gram Cracker / 3 fuels on the other. This makes the chart somewhat confusing

-Puts these like items into easily broken down categories. (ie Fuels, Included, Support etc.) and perhaps try and divide these categories with either a line or some shading.

I am impressed with the chart, however, I think it could use a few minor formatting tweaks to improve the readability. It took me a minute or two to figure out just what everything was.

I agree with that is above, was hard to work out that CC etc was.

Also, I would like to get the 1100ml pot, what is compatible with that, maybe you should build some options into the chart, so I can filter some things like pot size. Mind you I'm still trying to work out how it all works.

Rand presented information starting from each stove, and then which pots worked with each stove.

It seems as though there is interest in seeing it backwards. In other words, start from a pot and then what are your stove choices (all within that brand, of course).

I find it interesting to twist the basic information around until it makes sense to everybody. Otherwise, we might be forced to buy one of everything, and then scatter them all out on the floor and see what fits and why.

--B.G.--

Bob:

You nailed the ULC vs standard Caldera/Ti-Tri differences. No other reason for the ULC needing the deep pots. Bottom line is, we need 3" below the pot for the stove and stove offset, and then some amount of cone above that to hang onto the pot. So, pretty much any pot that is deeper than 3.5 to 4" will work.....but again, the pot is hanging out above the cone.

WRT the chart:

Thanks for the feedback....keep it coming!
One note, all of our systems support both the alcohol stove and esbit....so there is no organization there by stove type. The little ovals in the middle are there to indicate what comes standard/included with the package....not what it can do. The ovals to the right with the yellow dots are there to indicate some sort of gradation of function over some specific areas.

Another note, if you let your mouse "hover" over the little ovals, it will tell you what it is .....also....if you click on them, a window will pop up with even more information.

Now, with that said, I see that I need to spell that out more.....let me think it over. The legend at the top didn't seem to do it apparently. Also with that said, am curious as to whether it makes any more sense after this explanation.

Rand :-)

Rand

The chart made sense. I wasn't calling that into question. I am just saying that it took me about 6 minutes to sort out what all was going on, to me this defies the whole purpose of the chart to begin with.

I am not suggesting you change the ovals, the legend, the links or what they represent. I am only suggesting that you group like items next to each other. Seeing stove/fuel related items at opposite ends of the chart was really confusing.

I think you are categorizing things differently in you head then they first appear to us on the chart. You may just think of Alcohol stove, gram cracker etc as "included" items, and that's fine I am just saying your should put anything related to "stove" next to each other. It cuts out the work of the reader having to put the categories together.

I do really like the idea of a comparison chart, I think its cool, and you should definitely keep it up.

Edited by csforstall on 02/10/2010 07:04:46 MST.

Got it! I see what you're saying now....thanks!

Here is what I was thinking when I laid it out. As you look down the list of products from top to bottom, you see the line of little ovals getting longer from left to right. So, the way I laid it out, it should make it easier to see the difference between the product you are looking at and the one just above or below.....it mostly is the next little oval added to the end of the line. Now, all that falls apart as you shift from the aluminum cones to the Ti-Tris, but for the most part, it is lowest to highest cost from top to bottom, and less to more goodies left to right.

Thanks again for your insights.....I may try another layout or two and see if there is some happy medium between the various perspectives!

Rand :-)

Rand wrote:
>>Bottom line is, we need 3" below the pot for the stove and stove offset, and then some amount of cone above that to hang onto the pot. So, pretty much any pot that is deeper than 3.5 to 4" will work.....but again, the pot is hanging out above the cone.<<

Rand,
Is there any chance you'll be making a ULC cone for the Snow Peak 600? It's a 4" tall mug and I think one of the most popular ones out there. I love mine. I was surprised it wasn't included in the list of ULC supported mugs/pots. I'd snag a ULC cone for my SP600 in a heartbeat.

Thanks,
Gordon

Gordon:

(btw...love the Deadwood reference in your name! :-)

Well....I guess that's what I get for dribbling out only a subset of our ULC considerations. You got me!

Technically, yes, the SP600 could work with the ULC concept. The issue with including the SP600 in the ULC lineup is a result of the "generalized" nature of the ULC cone which fits a number of pots. Pots that were similar enough in diameter, height, and handle location could use a single cone. This is possible because the pot wasn't hanging by its lip, so we could have a looser fit on the diameter. Also, by generalizing the cone, reducing the material usage, eliminating the fuel bottle, and eliminating of the Caddy we could achieve a lower price point and thereby come up with an entry level product.

The SP600 however is unique enough in diameter (smaller than the 700), height (shorter than the Mini Solo, EV640 and MLD850), and handle location (it is lower and hits the tops of the cones), that we would have to make a unique cone just for it (impacting our low cost/Henry Ford everyman cone idea...."You can have any color car you want just so long as it's black").

Now, with that said, what we didn't consider is, offering it as a Ti-Tri ULC where the material cost is the driving factor in price and we pretty much make each Ti-Tri custom any way.....hummmm......interested in a titanium ULC for your SP600?

Rand :-)

Come on Rand; I would like one too.

Rand writes:
>>Now, with that said, what we didn't consider is, offering it as a Ti-Tri ULC where the material cost is the driving factor in price and we pretty much make each Ti-Tri custom any way.....hummmm......interested in a titanium ULC for your SP600?<<

Er, well, it looks like that's $70 for a Ti ULC cone vs. $25 for Al? Weight savings probably minimal. Since I already have your 12-10 stove and your Gram Cracker stove, all I really need is the ULC cone. As nice and efficient as I'm sure it is, it's still hard to justify $70 for it. I'll keep my eye on your site though, in case you do eventually develop an Al ULC SP600 cone. Fingers crossed!

G

Edited by swearingen on 02/11/2010 08:57:42 MST.

Hi Gordon,

Since you already have the stove, graham cracker, etc. I would email Rand as I am sure he would be happy to make you a custom TiTri UL without all the other accessories. I am sure this will be more than $25, but I would imagine it will be less than $70.

I am not sure, but I think the titanium might actually be a little heavier (tenths of an ounce), but I am sure someone will correct me or verify this.