If you are planning on heading out for a short trip, or are planning on bringing a gas-sipping stove like the MSR Reactor, you may want to consider saving some weight by bringing the new MSR 4oz (113g) canister. Demarkations on the side of the canister mean that you can float it in a pot of water and get an estimate of how full it is depending on how the height at which it floats.

Other brands have had those 4oz canisters for ages. What is unique about this, other than it bearing the MSR brand, which probably means overpriced?

Instead of trying to estimate the contents by floating it, why not simply weigh it on a digital scale?

--B.G.--

I didn't mention it in this post, but MSR is releasing a 1L pot for the reactor stove. This canister is designed such that it allows both the stove and the canister to fit in the pot as the larger canisters would be too big.

I've been buying 4 oz. MSR canisters for at least 7 years. The only new thing is being able to measure in the field (presumably none of us take a scale on backpacking trips) how much fuel is left. Interesting, but for me not a big deal.

they always had 4oz cannisters just a different shape. now they're narrower and taller rather than the same diameter and shorter than the 8oz

Ok, so maybe this isn't news. I rarely use a canister stove, I certainly have not bought the 4oz version before, so my apologies. The MSR stove rep thought it was important to mention in light of the new reactor pot, so I just assumed there was more to it there.

It's a good sales rep that can take nothing and make it sound like something.

--B.G.--

Not to pile on, but...

Since when is the reactor a sipper? I recall that it burns through canisters quickly.


B.G. said: It's a good sales rep that can take nothing and make it sound like something.


Huge +1
my buyers get WORKED on camping gear

That Reactor comment was based on data presented in Ryan Jordan's Ultralight bootcamp course comparing cooking systems for group travel. IIRC using the 2.5L pot, the Reactor is one of the most fuel efficient systems for boiling large quantities of water. Perhaps that "sipping" remark was out of place in this context.

Sorry to have a positive attitude (very sorry...) but for one I like the idea of those watermarks
Mind you, I suggested that way of measuring the leftover fuel sometime ago and the idea was known since Archimedes fell into his bathtub , still it is a good idea.
Franco

"Mind you, I suggested that way of measuring the leftover fuel sometime ago and the idea was known since Archimedes fell into his bathtub , still it is a good idea."

Archimedes must have been way ahead of his time if he was measuring isobutane canisters.

I never understood that at all. It's all Greek to me.

--B.G.--

Ελληνική είναι η Ελληνική και σε μένα

If the 4 oz. canister is going to be narrower, I will look for another brand. Narrower means tippier!

Most 4 oz canisters are the width of the snowpeak/jetboil canisters and all I have used. I don't find them too tippy. A local store has a bunch of jetboil canisters on clearance for 2.99 ; ).

Morning rant...
Really annoys me how some trip over each other in the rush to criticise manufacturers.
On one hand we have a go at them for lack of innovation then when they do, we immediately accuse them of employing gimmicks to deceive us.

In this case both the narrower canister as well as that gauge printed on the side can be useful to some.
The narrower cartridge fits inside narrow pots (in case you missed that, some complained that the other version did not...) .
If you have a narrow pot (and those are 400-700ml pots...) the narrower cartridge is not going to be that much more unstable than the other

as for the gauge, why is that a negative ? extra weight in ink ?

Franco

"as for the gauge, why is that a negative ? extra weight in ink ? "

I don't think that there is anything wrong with the product, it is just a little amusing when the marketing guys can't put together anything really robust, and they are scraping the bottom of the barrel when we hear comments about fuel sipping. The fuel estimation gauge isn't a problem as long as it works, but a digital scale will likely work better.

Much ado about nothing.

--B.G.--

yes a digital scale works very well in my backyard along with balloon beds , paper pots and 6'x4' tarps , not so much in the bush.
Franco

The hype we read didn't include any mention of the bush.

"If you are planning on heading out for a short trip, or are planning on bringing a gas-sipping stove like the MSR Reactor, ..."

If I am planning on heading out for a short trip, my digital scale is available to me.

--B.G.--

I like the idea of estimating remaining fuel by using the markings on the new MSR cannister. Half way through a trip I can see if I am using fuel above or below my anticipated rate and adjust accordingly.

"as for the gauge, why is that a negative ? extra weight in ink ?" Looks to me like a benefit without cost or weight (i.e. something for nothing).

The changed shape is a separate issue and open to debate, in my opinion.

Edited by lyrad1 on 08/06/2012 22:56:06 MDT.

You could do the trick of floating a canister to see how much fuel is left with any canister.

You'de have to calibrate yourself and see where a full and empty canister floats.