Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Bushbuddy -vs- Ti-Tri Inferno
Display Avatars Sort By:
Dan Durston
(dandydan) - M

Locale: Cascadia
Alcohol BB on 10/16/2010 17:19:54 MDT Print View

Regarding using alcohol in the BushBuddy, my problem was that if I used the top part of the BushBuddy then the pot wasn't high enough off of the alcohol stove so the stove was smothered and it also was exposed to the wind so I needed to carry a windscreen. If I used the main body of the bushbuddy with the 12-10 stove inside, it was precarious to set stakes on top of that (to create a gap for the flames) and then set the pot on those. It also burned wrong, as after it got hot the flames would reverse and come out the sides of the 12-10 stove and ignite the secondary combustion of the bush buddy which used a huge amount of fuel in no time.

It seems that some of these problems could be avoided with a different alcohol stove as mentioned, but you'd still want a windscreen if you're using the top part, or you'd need to use stakes to hold the pot off the body if you use the body, and this is a bit sketchy. If the body of the bushbuddy had tiny prongs to hold the pot 1/4" up, then it would be easy to use the body with an alcohol stove but you'd still want a different stove than the 12-10.

BER ---
(BER) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
BB as an alcohol stove on 10/17/2010 00:39:33 MDT Print View

The BB itself can be used as an alcohol stove without needing an additional dedicated alcohol stove.

For donating members to HF: http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19745

For those not on HF, the gist was to add 1 oz alcohol poured directly into the bottom of the BB, light with a stick, drop a 3" diameter disk of thin aluminum down onto the fire grate (I used a disk cut from an old windscreen). The BB is then used without the pot stand. Three spacers (I used rolled aluminum foil bent into the shape of large staples to fit over the edge of the BB) hold the pot 2-3mm off the top edge of the BB.

1oz alcohol boiled 2c 70F water in an Evernew 1L pasta pot in 4:50, and the flame went out at 7:00. This was reproducible within a 10-20 second range on multiple trials. Presumably you could get by on 2/3rds to 3/4ths of an ounce to boil to 2c.

The disk and spacers weighed 4g total.

I am not advocating this as a cooking setup, but it was nice to know that you could use the BB with alcohol directly as a backup if dry wood was scarce, without the need to carry an additional alcohol stove. The disk and 3 spacers take up negligible space.

Another member of HF involved in the trials posted this you tube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Rs-uX_yRg
Note that this was before the idea of using the aluminum disk came up, which significantly prolonged the burn time of 1oz of alcohol.

Edited by BER on 10/17/2010 00:45:50 MDT.

Dan Durston
(dandydan) - M

Locale: Cascadia
Spacers on 10/17/2010 01:01:48 MDT Print View

You idea of using three U shaped spacers is a good one. That sounds a lot more stable than using 2 tent pegs which have a tenancy to roll. This sounds like a good backup alcohol setup for the BB....much better than carrying a separate stove.

Now if only Fritz would make a 3oz Ti version of the BB, perhaps with a slightly larger chamber...then it would be the ultimate long trip stove. I emailed him about it 2 months ago and it sounded like he wasn't working on it very hard so I wouldn't expect anything soon.

Edited by dandydan on 10/17/2010 01:02:50 MDT.

Ken Strayer
(TheRambler) - F
Food for thought: Bushcooker on 10/17/2010 07:02:42 MDT Print View

I know the Op mentioned specifically the Bushbuddy vs the Ti-Tri Inferno, but I recently purchased a Bushcooker from Four Dog Stoves.

I did alot of research into this and narrowed it down to the Bushcooker after a few weeks of debating it and searching high and low for reviews and first hand accounts.

I went with a Bushcooker LT1 , and so far I could not be happier. I have had it for about 3 months, and have taken it on quite a few overnighters and a few 3 day trips so far. It burns remarkably well with wood, alchohol, or esbit. I use it mostly with wood or alchohol, or a combination of both. Using a Snowpeak 700 I can get 2 cups to boil in about 6-7 minutes depending on conditions, or if using a wider pot such as my MSR stainless steel 1.5L alpine i can get a a boil in about 4-5 minutes and a liter to boil in 6-7.

If your in the market for this kind of stove I would at least look into the Bushcooker before you make your final decision, to give you another stove to compare.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Bushbuddy -vs- Ti-Tri Inferno on 10/17/2010 13:10:55 MDT Print View

I have been using the Ti-Tri SideWinder for a few months now. The outer cone weighs 44g (1.5 oz) for the 2 litre version, and is all we need for burning anything (including canister stoves). No need for the inner cone and mesh unless you are worried about fire scar. More stable, very wind worthy, more versatile and much lighter than the BB...and it fits in your pot if your pot has the right dimensions. Same for the standard Ti-Tri too, except it doesn't fit in your pot. Anyone want to buy a slightly used BushBuddy?

James Arzigian
(Renais) - M
Canister stove and Ti-Tri on 10/17/2010 17:28:15 MDT Print View

Lynn,
I am very interested in your use of a canister stove with the Ti-Tri. What stove do you use? Is the fuel delivered remotely, or is it directly under the stove? Do you have any issues with the stove overheating with the excellent protection of the Ti-Tri? Are you using a pot that fits the top of the Ti-Tri exactly, or do you support the pot as if using the system in wood burning mode?
Jim

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Canister stove and Ti-Tri on 10/17/2010 17:48:55 MDT Print View

Jim

I have used both a SnowPeak Giga idrectly under (I leave the cone slightly open at the dovetail, away from the wind so I can monitor canister temps and adjust flame), and an MSR WindPro remote with the Ti-Tri. In both cases I put the stove on the cooker pot supports, which puts the pot up higher than the top of the cone, but the cone still blocks the wind brilliantly. It also stabilises the stove. When using the Giga I put two stakes into the ground either side of the dovetail to keep it all in place. With a remote canister there is no issue closing up the dovetail completely. This is with a cone sized to fit the pot exactly. I imagine a smaller pot it would work just as well, with less chance of canister overheating when used with a top canister stove.

Tom Clark
(TomClark) - MLife

Locale: East Coast
Re: Bushbuddy -vs- Ti-Tri Inferno on 10/17/2010 18:01:25 MDT Print View

I thought Dan did a good job summarizing. I have the Bushbuddy & an alcohol based Caldera, not the wood-buring one.

I enjoy Frank's posts, but I have to disagree about his Bushbuddy wind statement. Even the original BPL info states that you need to block breezes with that stove. I have run into that problem, but it took me a little while to realize what the problem was.

For 1-3 nights, I am deciding that a wood-burning stove is not the best choice.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Bushbuddy -vs- Ti-Tri Inferno on 10/17/2010 18:56:49 MDT Print View

The BushBuddy is, IMHO, a very poor choice for windy conditions if you can't find a sheltered spot to use it. I've done a Reader Review of the SideWinder, and a comparison of it with my impressions of the BB here:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/reviews/display_reviews.html?forum_thread_id=38277

Brad Groves
(4quietwoods) - MLife

Locale: Michigan
Re: Bushbuddy -vs- Ti-Tri Inferno on 10/18/2010 16:37:07 MDT Print View

Major advantage of Inferno, there's no fuss with fuel loading. I put in one big batch load, light it, and call it good. If I want to make something later, or am enjoying having a fire, I can add a little wood. BB-style stoves seem to require more continuous feeding which I didn't like. Can take just the Ti Tri, or w/Inferno... good versatility.

Kevin Kerstens
(kjkerstens) - MLife

Locale: BC Canada
Ti-Tri Inferno on 10/18/2010 22:22:52 MDT Print View

After two years of using the Bushbuddy and a couple of very long frustrating nights in the rain I decided that I am an alcohol guy who likes to have a wood backup and not a wood guy who likes to have an alcohol backup.

I was using a simple Trangia burner inside the Bushbuddy and I could get it to the right hight by resting the burner on the simmering ring. It worked well enough but seemed to burn a lot of fuel without a proper wind screen and with the simmering ring now utilized I had a hard time extinguishing the burner to recoup my unused fuel.

In the end I bought the Ti-Tri Inferno and have been very happy with it. The pieces are a bit finicky but this is a very good (efficient) alcohol stove that lets you burn wood as well. Like other readers have said the larger capacity of the Ti-Tri lets you fill it up which gives you a bit more time between loads to get other work done.

The only gotcha with the Ti-Tri is don't touch the sides - after using the bushbuddy which you can easily pick up and relocate, you will be unpleasantly surprised when you try the same maneuver with the Ti-Tri. I can only say the experience is so memorable that you will probably only ever do it once.

Dennis Hiorns
(hanson)

Locale: Michigan
BB vs Ti-Tri on 10/19/2010 05:14:16 MDT Print View

"After two years of using the Bushbuddy and a couple of very long frustrating nights in the rain I decided that I am an alcohol guy who likes to have a wood backup and not a wood guy who likes to have an alcohol backup."

X2 - after using wood-burning stoves (although not a real BB) and the Ti-Tri, the above quote is a perfect summary of how I feel.

The Ti-Tri provides an excellent alcohol stove, and for mere grams I can take three small pieces with that will allow the stove to burn wood if necessary (or desired).

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Re: Re: Bushbuddy -vs- Ti-Tri Inferno on 01/30/2012 18:27:20 MST Print View

Lynn Tramper wrote: > I have been using the Ti-Tri SideWinder for a few months now. The outer cone weighs 44g (1.5 oz) for the 2 litre version, and is all we need for burning anything (including canister stoves). No need for the inner cone and mesh unless you are worried about fire scar. More stable, very wind worthy, more versatile and much lighter than the BB...and it fits in your pot if your pot has the right dimensions. Same for the standard Ti-Tri too, except it doesn't fit in your pot. Anyone want to buy a slightly used BushBuddy?
Lynn,

Did your WindPro's hose suffer any ill effects from the heat? Were you using a heat reflector of any type that would protect the hose?

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Mark Rash
(markrvp) - M

Locale: North Texas
Which Ti Tri? on 01/30/2012 21:14:34 MST Print View

I would really like a Caldera Cone system, but I can't figure out which one to get. On the Ti-Tri there is the Classic, Sidewinder, and ULC.

Does one of those models work better than the other in wood-burning mode? Is the lower height of the Sidewinder a disadvantage?

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Which Ti Tri? on 01/30/2012 21:31:57 MST Print View

The Sidewinder packs tighter into a pot. The ULC is shorter, so you can't fill it with so much wood, assuming that you are trying to burn wood.

I just went for the Classic.

--B.G.--

Dan Durston
(dandydan) - M

Locale: Cascadia
Ti-Tri on 01/30/2012 21:42:54 MST Print View

" I can't figure out which one to get.

I personally like ULC cones because of the way they store. I can get the cone and stove in my pot, plus a mug and my spoon and the alcohol bottle...so it's all right there. It's a beautiful thing. With the Sidewinder, you might get the stove in there too but that's it. You often need to have your stakes, spoon mug etc stored elsewhere. ULC cones are also lighter typically, since they work with narrow/tall pots (smaller circumference), while the Sidewinder works with wider pots.

The wide pots that work with the Sidewinder are more efficient than a narrow pot, which is a plus with alcohol, but if you're using wood then efficiency isn't that big of a consideration.

With the regular Ti-Tri, you've got to find a way to store it, which is probably going to end up being heavy and less convenient. IMO, if you're set on a full height cone for whatever reason, then contact Trail Designs and get a Fissure so you can still store it in your pot.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Which Ti Tri? on 01/30/2012 22:32:57 MST Print View

I would really like a Caldera Cone system, but I can't figure out which one to get. On the Ti-Tri there is the Classic, Sidewinder, and ULC.

Does one of those models work better than the other in wood-burning mode? Is the lower height of the Sidewinder a disadvantage?
Mark,

If you've got a wide pot, the Sidewinder is a great way to go. It's a little more low slung, but its width more than makes up for its lack of height. If you saw my recent The Ti-Tri Caldera Cone -- The Ultimate Ultralight Stove System? blog post, that's a Sidewinder Cone I'm using. Plenty of room for wood. I've also tested it on alcohol. No diminution of efficiency.

If you've got a tall, skinny pot, then the ULC is a good option, however, a ULC is not as efficient with alcohol or hexamine (e.g. ESBIT) since part of the pot extends above the cone and is unavailable for heat transfer.

For other pots or if you just want a more efficient system, the "classic" cone is the way to go. Yes, you do have to figure out a way to carry the cone. I use a Ziploc container to hold a rolled up classic cone. It packs pretty well, and I use the Ziploc as my bowl. See What "Color" is Your Caldera?" for some packing options on "classic" cones.

You can also get a custom "Fissure" Cone. A Fissure cone is basically a classic Cone that comes in two sections that stack together to form one Cone. You'd have to talk to Rand at TrailDesigns about one of those. He's been remarkably responsive (and patient) all the times I've bugged him lately for information for my blog posts. The beauty of the Fissure is that you get a full cone but you can still store it inside your pot since it breaks down into two sections for packing.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Edited by hikin_jim on 01/30/2012 22:40:38 MST.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Comparative Conology on 01/30/2012 23:22:25 MST Print View

Here are some cones just for reference. The cones on the sides are "classic" Cones. The cone in the center is a Sidewinder Cone that fits in the 1300ml pot shown.



HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Dan Durston
(dandydan) - M

Locale: Cascadia
Sidewinder on 01/30/2012 23:44:22 MST Print View

What sidewinder pot is that, where you don't need the stakes? That's awesome.

Eugene Smith
(Eugeneius) - MLife

Locale: Nuevo Mexico
"Bushbuddy -vs- Ti-Tri Inferno" on 01/30/2012 23:53:40 MST Print View

^ Dan,

I'm pretty certain Jim has the 1.3L Evernew Sidewinder setup- killer system I must say.