Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The New, Lighter 1.0L MSR Reactor
Display Avatars Sort By:
Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
The New, Lighter 1.0L MSR Reactor on 04/09/2013 09:53:27 MDT Print View

I'm splitting this thread off from another thread.

Jerry Adams wrote: >The Reactor is ridiculously heavy.
Have you seen the new smaller, lighter Reactor? It's significantly lighter than the original (pre-2009) Reactors. I hardly ever use my original 1.7L Reactor unless I plan to melt serious snow. It's just not worth it; it's such a heavy beast. But they re-designed the pot ca. 2009, and it's a lot lighter.

Original, beefy 1.7L Reactor pot (left). New, lighter 1.0L Reactor pot (right).


In 2013 (January), they came out with a 1.0L version. It's still heavier than a JB, but it's windproof whereas a JB really isn't. A JB has better wind resistance than an ordinary upright, but it can't compare to a Reactor. I'm pretty much liking what I'm seeing with the new 1.0L version of the Reactor. I just got it, but I expect that I'll actually get some use out of it as opposed to my old, original version 1.7L Reactor (which mainly sits).

HJ
Adventures in Stoving

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: The New, Lighter 1.0L MSR Reactor on 04/09/2013 12:21:02 MDT Print View

Oh, and if I'm citing a weight savings, I suppose I could mention what those weight savings are. :)

The original 1.7L Reactor pot weighs 341g (without lid), which is a ratio of 0.20g/ml. The new Reactor pot weighs 172g, which is a ratio of 0.17g/ ml. So, even though smaller pots usually weigh more per unit of volume, the new Reactor actually weighs less per unit of volume. The weight savings here aren't just from a smaller pot but rather from a redesign. Note: Both the original and the new mini Reactor use the same burner.


The new 1.0L Reactor pot is 169g less than the original (pre-2009) 1.7L pot. They've reduced the weight by nearly half. That's pretty significant.


HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Eric Blumensaadt
(Danepacker) - MLife

Locale: Mojave Desert
Still not convinced... on 04/09/2013 13:34:38 MDT Print View

I'm still not convinced that it's any better (if as good) than my MSR Dragonfly, which is the best simmering liquid fuel stove I know.

With the Dragonfly I can use my aluminized fiberglass cloth Backcountry Oven to bake and a 1 liter Jetboil finned pot for melting snow more efficiently. Plus I always use my MSR windscreen, which works very well.

MSR 1.0 Reactor? I doubt that it will interest me. But thanks for the update. It shows that Cascade Designs' elves are still working away in their skunk works.

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Still not convinced... on 04/09/2013 13:42:20 MDT Print View

I used the original Reactor at 11,000 feet in temperatures of -6C with wind howling at 83 KM per hour. It boiled a litre in about 2 minutes. Will your Dragonfly do that?

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Still not convinced... on 04/09/2013 14:15:37 MDT Print View

Eric,

It sounds like you're on the right track in terms of efficiency, but it's in windproofness that the Reactor really shines. Yes, you can use the MSR windscreen on a Dragonfly (indeed MSR's founder, Larry Penberthy, originated the concept of a remote liquid fueled stove with a windscreen, a concept that shot MSR ahead of the competition in the early 1970's). But in 83kph (52mph) winds? The typical Dragonfly will take a beating -- although augmenting with the hood from the Outback oven will help. It would be interesting to compare the two set ups ("vanilla" Reactor vs. Dragonfly+windscreen+Outback Oven hood). It would also be interesting to compare a Trangia 27 with a gas or liquid petroleum fuel set up to a Reactor.

What is the weight of your D'fly + bottle + windscreen + Outback Oven hood + Jetboil pot? I'm thinking the Reactor may have the advantage here. Do you have a photo of your set up? If you're using a tall JB pot, I'd like to see how that works. Not so sure about a tall pot in this setup. The wider 1.5L GCS pot I think would be ideal.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

David Chenault
(DaveC) - BPL Staff - F

Locale: Crown of the Continent
re: new Reactor on 04/09/2013 14:55:02 MDT Print View

Good news on the real weight savings of the 1 liter Reactor. What I like about it, v. a Jetboil, is that it doesn't feel cheap and fragile.

I loath the Dragonfly. A finicky design made worse by that awful, always-clogging fuel filter. To say nothing of the noise.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: re: new Reactor on 04/09/2013 17:43:45 MDT Print View

I loath the Dragonfly. A finicky design made worse by that awful, always-clogging fuel filter. To say nothing of the noise.
Yeah, I've gotten bit by that fuel filter. One trick in the field if you don't have a spare filter: Pull out the filter (carefully!), taking care to deform it as little as possible. A safety pin works reasonably well for this. Then, with a sharp knife, shave off the first hair's width thickness of the filter. Replace the filter. It's saved me before. I very much dislike that in-line filter, and I think it's totally unnecessary given that MSR has now put a filter on the fuel pick up tube on the pump, which is where a filter ought to be. The filter on the the pump can be cleaned with white gas and scrubbing if needed. I think carb cleaner would work too, but I haven't tried it.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Dragonfly Noise on 04/09/2013 17:45:51 MDT Print View

To say nothing of the noise.
Oh, and the noise is controllable with the purchase of an aftermarket part. Bit of a weight penalty, but the (greatly) reduced noise is heavenly. Currently working on a review.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

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

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: re: new Reactor on 04/09/2013 17:52:23 MDT Print View

"A finicky design made worse by that awful, always-clogging fuel filter."

David, have you considered filtering your white gas before putting it in the fuel bottle?

I've owned MSR stoves for 35 years, and I've never had any sort of fuel clog in a filter.

--B.G.--

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Re: re: new Reactor on 04/09/2013 18:17:48 MDT Print View

I've owned MSR stoves for 35 years, and I've never had any sort of fuel clog in a filter.
That's all very well and fine, but have you used a Dragonfly much?

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Wolf's Rain
(WolfsRain) - M
1.0L Reactor on 11/13/2013 16:49:37 MST Print View

Anyone using this "little" guy? I know its not quite ultralight, but I picked one up today. I had a coupon for LLBean and needed a stove so figured why not. They have a good return policy if things don't work out. It doesn't pack super small either. But, I'm hoping it will be good for quick weekend trips where the non-fiddle factor and speed will mean more time on the trail.

Rick Adams
(rickadams100) - M
reactor on 11/13/2013 19:37:11 MST Print View

I have one and its great. I was in a windy rain cloud and our whole group ended up sharing it. It's my current go to stove.

greg c
(spindrifter) - F
Reactor in Extreme Conditions on 11/13/2013 21:59:17 MST Print View

Great point by Dave U about the efficiency of the reactor at altitude in extreme conditions. It shines in that environment. Perhaps it is not the stove for calm 70 degree summer days. When at altitude in the cold or wind it is a loyal companion.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: re: new Reactor on 11/13/2013 22:17:45 MST Print View

"I've owned MSR stoves for 35 years, and I've never had any sort of fuel clog in a filter."

Same here. I pour fuel from the bulk container through a filter/funnel. I Don't use fuel that has been sitting around for a long time - just last week I dropped of a 1/2 gallon of old white gas at our hazardous waste disposal site and bought some new fuels... Just waiting for some snow in our local mountains. I always to the annual maintenance. I don't use the MSR stoves much anymore, except for winter.

James Marco
(jamesdmarco) - MLife

Locale: Finger Lakes
Re: Re: Re: re: new Reactor on 11/14/2013 05:23:10 MST Print View

"...just last week I dropped of a 1/2 gallon of old white gas..."
WG is pretty stable in a sealed container...no additives to help a car engine run that also break down over time.

Canisters don't break down much either. Easily stored for ten years or more.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: new Reactor on 11/14/2013 08:33:18 MST Print View

Actually is was not technically white gas, but Coleman fuel. From the Coleman website...

"An un-opened container of Coleman® Fuel stored in a dry area with no rapid extreme changes in temperature will remain viable for five to seven years. An opened container stored in the same area will remain viable for up to two years though will be at its best if used within a year."

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Re: Re: re: new Reactor on 11/14/2013 08:46:59 MST Print View

> "I've owned MSR stoves for 35 years, and I've never had any sort of fuel clog in a filter."

Same here. I pour fuel from the bulk container through a filter/funnel.
Yeah, and I've been pretty diligent about it too. Still, if any schmutz gets in there, the DragonFly is much more prone to clogging than other stoves. The Optimus Nova is the same. The "in-line" filter is good in that it catches things but bad in that it's hard to clean and clogs so easily. The newer style filters at the point of intake are a much better idea: Less prone to clogging, easier to clean. The intake filters are SO much easier to clean in the field.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 08:59:57 MST Print View

> Actually is was not technically white gas, but Coleman fuel. From the Coleman website...
Coleman fuel is actually a lot more stable than true white gas. My uncle left me his old 1962 Primus 71 stove (brass, not ultra light but definitely ultra cool). :) He had been in ill health and probably hadn't used it for a quarter century when he died. It still had Coleman fuel inside. On a whim, I fired it up. I burned just fine. Coleman is being a tad conservative in their estimates. If you keep air away, Coleman fuel can last for years and years.

By the way, true white gas is really hard to find in the United States. It is available in some areas where Amish live (apparently they use it for lanterns and such), but other than that it's generally unavailable. Coleman, Sunnyside, and MSR are the principle "white gas" purveyors now. There used to be Blazo (Chevron) and Ozark Trails (a WalMart brand).

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: new Reactor on 11/14/2013 09:10:43 MST Print View

I used MSR whisperlite white gas stove. It clogged up a couple times. I took it apart in the field and got it working.

Worse than that, is it occasionally flared up and singed my eyebrows. Although I admit it was user error.

I've used several brands of upright, many more days, never had a clog.

With an upright canister, the fuel evaporates inside the canister, and only gas flows to the stove. Inherently less likely to clog the stove.

On the other hand, my Coleman Exponent F1 Ultralight developed this nasty habit of leaking the contents of the canister overnight when it got down to about freezing, so in the morning I had no fuel.

In my opinion, no stove is perfect, but upright canister stoves are the simplest, most reliable.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Reactor in Extreme Conditions on 11/14/2013 09:23:51 MST Print View

> Great point by Dave U about the efficiency of the reactor at altitude in extreme conditions. It shines in that environment. Perhaps it is not the stove for calm 70 degree summer days. When at altitude in the cold or wind it is a loyal companion.
There's nothing that I'm aware of that makes a Reactor better at altitude than other canister stoves. It's in wind where the Reactor is the outstanding stove.

When I was doing the testing for the post that started this thread, some scouts nearby were super interested in my Reactor when I told them about its windproofness. They had been out in high winds a few weeks before, and their stoves were blowing out. They were having trouble keeping them lit. It's in conditions like those that the Reactor has no equal.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 09:30:09 MST Print View

I have used old gas in my SVEA 123 with good results. "Fresh" gas does seem to burn bluer though. There was a time that a gallon of fuel wouldn't last more than a few months, but I am not using liquid stoves much these days. So I will start buying fuel in the quart containers. With the MSRs, I just prefer not to use old fuel... perhaps that, along with filtering and maintenance, is why I have never had a MSR stove failure.

Ah, but maintaining equipment, backpacking and other, seems to be a lost art with the younger generations. I read the owner manuals for everything I buy and follow the manufacturers maintenance procedures and schedules. Being in the car business I can tell you that few owners read the manual these days, other than how to work the stereo.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 09:37:26 MST Print View

"Being in the car business I can tell you that few owners read the manual these days, other than how to work the stereo."

Not true! We also read the manual to see how to turn off those darn warning lights that some service or other is due.....

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 09:51:03 MST Print View

"Ah, but maintaining equipment, backpacking and other, seems to be a lost art with the younger generations. I read the owner manuals for everything I buy and follow the manufacturers maintenance procedures and schedules."

I believe we're approximately the same (old) age.

I throw away user manuals. If it isn't intuitively obvious, it's a defective design.

(only half serious - I read user manuals sometimes - but what's to say about canister stove, screw onto canister, only an idiot cross threads it, since it's an upright there's nothing to maintain,...)

greg c
(spindrifter) - F
The Point Being... on 11/14/2013 09:58:28 MST Print View

"There's nothing that I'm aware of that makes a Reactor better at altitude than other canister stoves. It's in wind where the Reactor is the outstanding stove".

Typically at altitude you face higher winds and colder temps thus the conditions are more demanding. The reference to altitude is an umbrella that captures a variety of factors affecting stove performance.

Also, considering canister stoves, the Reactor is not just superior in wind, but also in cold temps. It has an internal pressure regulator, and at least in the less than scientific tests I've done, it can't be beat in single digit temperatures.

Edited by spindrifter on 11/14/2013 10:13:00 MST.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Canister Gas Stoves at "Altitude" on 11/14/2013 11:14:42 MST Print View

> Typically at altitude you face higher winds and colder temps thus the conditions are more demanding. The reference to altitude is an umbrella that captures a variety of factors affecting stove performance.
Ah. OK, I follow; I see what you mean.

My only concern (and it's my own personal stove nerdly concern) :) is that some people don't understand that by "altitude" what is really meant is "the things that typically come with altitude." There's a persistent myth out there that canister gas stoves "don't work at altitude" (this seems particularly prevalent among Scouts for some reason). I usually try to specify "wind" or "cold" rather than just "altitude" because of this rumor -- which I'd like to see dispelled. Canister stoves have been used successfully on all sorts of Himalayan expeditions.

Speaking of cold and altitude, for every 1,000 feet you climb, a canister gas stove will operate (about) 2 degrees Fahrenheit colder due to the lower air pressure (all else being equal).

> the Reactor is not just superior in wind, but also in cold temps. It has an internal pressure regulator, and at least in the less than scientific tests I've done, it can't be beat in single digit temperatures.
That's interesting. Others have alluded to the Reactor working better than in other stoves in cold weather. Can you say more about what you've experienced?

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

greg c
(spindrifter) - F
Reactor and Cold Temps on 11/14/2013 12:00:29 MST Print View

Hi Jim. I've taken the Reactor on numerous snow camping adventures and last February me and a buddy took the Reactor, a Jetboil, MSR micro rocket, and a coleman extreme to do some non-scientific testing. At temperatures hovering at 20 degrees the Reactor was a monster. It didn't suffer the usual glacial melting process that ordinary canisters are plagued. My trusty MSR micro rocket was a dog in that setting as I expected. The Jetboil was affected adversely as well, but my old Coleman Extreme did very well.

As for the Reactor, I'm assuming it is the internal pressure regulator and overall design efficiency that allows it to function so well in cold. However, I can't definitively state the reasons, but perhaps some of our engineer friends can. MSR claims the regulator is responsible for good cold weather performance.

One other neat thing of note. When using the Reactor on snow you don't have to put a mousepad or chunk of bark underneath it like other stoves. It captures heat so effectively that you don't end up with a growing hole where the stove is placed. This is not really a big deal, but in the past i carried a mousepad for my other stoves when snowcamping and now I don't. A small weight saving, but it further confirms that sometimes we don't always get the entire weight savings picture just by comparing base weights of products. This also can be said for stove efficiency and weight reductions associated with carrying less fuel.

Anyhow, enjoy the new Reactor!

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 14:50:59 MST Print View

Hi Jim

> true white gas is really hard to find in the United States.
So what is the technical difference between 'true white gas' and what is sold today?

Cheers

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 15:27:43 MST Print View

Well, I'm not a Pet. E. nor a chemist and I'm no expert, but here's my understanding:
True white gasoline is the type of gasoline originally refined for automobiles, the type with out tetraethyl lead added. When tetraethyl lead was later added to inhibit premature detonation ("knocking"), the leaded gasoline was dyed red to distinguish it from gasoline without lead. Leaded gasoline became known as "red" gasoline (sometimes also called "ethyl") and gasoline without lead became known as "white" gasoline. Note that white gasoline is not the same as "unleaded" gasoline. Unleaded gasoline has additives to prevent premature detonation; the additives just aren't lead. White gasoline does not have anti-knock additives.

Then along came William C Coleman. From the Coleman website:

W.C. Coleman could see the light for the darkness. The young salesman was taking a stroll after a hard day’s work selling typewriters, and spotted a new type of lamplight in a drugstore window in Brockton, Alabama. This new light burned with a strong, steady white flame and was fueled by gasoline. The standard lamp of the era burned kerosene and produced a smoky, flickering, yellowish light. W.C. was stricken with very poor eyesight, and was very interested in this new, steady white light that enabled him to read even the smallest print in books and on medicine bottles. Coleman saw potential in the new light, and through his vision a new company was born that would put America’s farms and ranches in a new light.
The Coleman company originally used white gasoline. At some point, the Coleman company developed and improved fuel, one that was safer, more stable, and, by virtue of the addition of rust inhibitors, made their equipment last longer. Thus Coleman fuel was born.

Of course there a number of similar fuels: Shellite, Blazo, Sunnyside Camping Appliance Fuel, MSR Super Fuel, Fuelite, etc. These are considered to be in the general category of "naphtha" although naphtha hardly has a precise definition. Kerosene for that matter doesn't either. Zen Stoves has a write up on the differences in various Petrol Fuels.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

USA Duane Hall
(hikerduane) - F

Locale: Extreme northern Sierra Nevada
Coleman Fuel Stability/defense of DF noise on 11/14/2013 19:03:43 MST Print View

I also understand Coleman Fuel/knockoffs, have a much lower octane rating too, not good for auto engines, but should help us get a burner going.
I have had a DF for a couple years now, late to the dance, no issues so far, but thanks for the heads up over the filter.

I have a aftermarket silent burner, one of Gary's (berniedawg)'s Dragontamer caps. It works very well, quiet and the stove simmers very well. I've had the stove poking along simmering a stew with no attention needed, other than to look over at it once in awhile to make sure I could still see steam coming off the pot. My understanding also, it reduces the noise by quite a bit, and maybe a added benefit, reduces stove output which maybe helps with the stove being able to be throttled down and allow simmering at a nice pace.

Last weekend I used my MSR 9 with the simmer plate (medium tin can end), it didn't help much. Ended up having to hold it over the whole thing for the most part.

From my observations, Coleman Powermax fuel canisters are not any better at the fuels not separating than currently available canister fuel. I had issues with my Xtreme stove last year in the fall, I had to keep turning up the valve. I checked things out at home and the stove ran fine and the fuel by that time was warmer. I was bping in temps in the mid 20F.
Duane

kevin timm
(ktimm) - M

Locale: Colorado (SeekOutside)
I need one on 11/14/2013 20:38:04 MST Print View

I love the reactor. It is heavy, but it flat out works. Last week, it was in my pack specifically for snow melting as that was the only water available. I think I need the new 1L

Thanks for the info Jim

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Reactor and Cold Temps on 11/15/2013 12:02:15 MST Print View

> Hi Jim. I've taken the Reactor on numerous snow camping adventures and last February me and a buddy took the Reactor, a Jetboil, MSR micro rocket, and a coleman extreme to do some non-scientific testing. At temperatures hovering at 20 degrees the Reactor was a monster. It didn't suffer the usual glacial melting process that ordinary canisters are plagued. My trusty MSR micro rocket was a dog in that setting as I expected. The Jetboil was affected adversely as well, but my old Coleman Extreme did very well.
So the Reactor did better than the Jetboil in those conditions? Interesting. Identical fuel? And at what elevation? Was there much wind? And most importantly, which version of the Jetboil did you take?

> As for the Reactor, I'm assuming it is the internal pressure regulator and overall design efficiency that allows it to function so well in cold. However, I can't definitively state the reasons, but perhaps some of our engineer friends can.
There are two competing theories here:
1. The regulator allows a larger aperture jet to be used safely. The larger jet size increases performance in cold weather.

2. The Reactor is conducting heat to the gas canister. The conducted heat increases performance in cold weather.

Personally, I think theory #1 is what's behind the improved performance of the Reactor, but it could well be a combination of theories 1 and 2.

Will Rietveld notes in several places in his articles on integrated canister stoves that the stoves with regulator valves (in this case the Jetboil Sol and the MSR Reactor) did better in cold weather.
Article I
Article II

But he provides no explanation as to why.

In my testing of the Soto Microregulator (OD-1R) (see Advantages (?) of Regulator Valved Stoves), I found no material benefit to having a regulator in terms of cold weather performance.

It would seem that a regulator alone is insufficient.

Really, more testing is required to understand why the Reactor and perhaps the Jetboil Sol do better in cold weather.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Edited by hikin_jim on 11/15/2013 12:04:08 MST.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Coleman Fuel Stability/defense of DF noise on 11/15/2013 14:59:40 MST Print View

> Coleman Powermax fuel canisters are not any better at the fuels not separating
> than currently available canister fuel.
Sorry, but wrong. The liquid in the canister is a mixture which cannot separate just to feed into the delivery tube. Just not possible.

What may have been happening is that the canister was getting colder, lowering the internal pressure. Very easy to do. Me, I let a bit of radiation from the stove hit the canister to keep it just above freezing.

Cheers

greg c
(spindrifter) - F
Quoted Weights on 11/15/2013 15:20:37 MST Print View

You seem to be quoting a weight difference of 6 oz. between the 1.7 and 1 liter pots. I purchased my stove in 2010 and it weighs 17.5 oz, the same as currently listed by MSR. The new 1 liter pot results in a mere 2.8 oz. savings (total stove weight = 14.7 oz.). It's probably important to point this out because I'm sure there are many possessing the post 2009 pot that is apparently lighter than the one you own. For me anyway, a 2.8 oz. savings isn't worthy of the change.

Additionally, you state that the MSR 1 liter is still heavier than Jetboil. If you actually compare the JB one liter model (Flash) the weights are within a three quarters of an ounce. You would have to either choose a smaller JB pot capacity or a titanium JB to have a lower total weight.

Edited by spindrifter on 11/15/2013 15:31:17 MST.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Quoted Weights on 11/15/2013 15:35:58 MST Print View

Yes, correct. Which is why I added the following to my original blog post:

Update 25 March 2013: MSR informs me that there is also a newer version of the 1.7L Reactor pot that has the same welded fins as the new 1.0L Reactor pot. The newer version of the 1.7L Reactor pot is lighter by about three ounces (~80g) than the original 1.7L Reactor pot. If you have the newer version of the 1.7L Reactor pot, your weight savings will not be quite as substantial if you switch to the 1.0L Reactor pot.
If you have the original 1.7 L Reactor pot, you'll save about 6 oz if you switch to the new 1.0 L Reactor pot.

If you have a newer 1.7 L Reactor pot, you'll save about 3 oz if you switch to the new 1.0 L Reactor pot. Definitely less of a weight savings, but some, and some space savings too. Is it worth it? Judgement call. The new 1.0 L pot is really a sweet upgrade if you have an original 1.7 L pot.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
1.0 L MSR Reactor Component Weights on 11/15/2013 15:38:18 MST Print View

Note also in my component weight listings down at the bottom of my blog post that there is some variability in the weight. The unit I have is lighter that the stated weight that MSR lists.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving



<span style="">Appendix I<span style=""> -- Component Weights</span></span>



<colgroup><col style="" width="71" /><col span="3" style="" width="70" /><col style="" width="64" /></colgroup><tbody>






</tbody>
ItemGrams MeasuredStated GramsOunces MeasuredStated Ounces
1.0L Pot1721976.16.9
Burner1781796.36.3
Lid36361.31.3
Pack Cloth440.10.1
Total39041613.814.7

Update 25 March 2013:  I've weighed my 1.0L pot at least ten times now.  I get 172g.  I talked to MSR.  They weighed a pot there in Seattle and confirmed 197g.  That's a difference of 25g (nearly an ounce).  I'm not sure what the issue is here.  My pot seems fine, but maybe I got an odd pot?  If I can, I'll head to a local store and see if I can measure another pot, but these are new, so I haven't seen them in any stores yet.  If you decide to purchase one, don't count on your pot being 172g; it may be 197g.  Regardless of the precise weight, the system is well designed, well put together, and is clearly lighter than the original Reactor. 




greg c
(spindrifter) - F
Quoted weight. on 11/15/2013 15:41:47 MST Print View

Correct. But like I said I have a 2010 model 1.7 liter and it is 17.5 oz. The change occurred not in 2013 but sometime earlier in the product's life. Point being many people with the 1.7 have the lighter version already so your claim of weight savings is inaccurate for those individuals.

Edited by spindrifter on 11/15/2013 15:43:41 MST.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Quoted weight. on 11/15/2013 15:48:18 MST Print View

Well, hopefully people will read the post in it's entirety. I put down in multiple places that newer versions of the 1.7 L pot are lighter. The 2013 update date is the date that I wrote the update, not the date that MSR changed the pot. I don't have a date for when the pot changed.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Steve Sandifur
(STS)
Burner doesn't nest in 1.0L on 12/21/2013 09:54:21 MST Print View

One thing to add is that the burner does not nest in the 1.0l.How in the world this wasn't caught before distribution is beyond me.

Gary Dunckel
(Zia-Grill-Guy) - MLife

Locale: Boulder
Burner DOES nest in 1.0L on 12/21/2013 10:12:52 MST Print View

Steve, the burner will nest inside the 1.0 L. pot with a small (4 oz.) fuel canister. It's described in Hikin' Jim's blog (I think that's where I saw it). It's a precise fit, and it must be done just right. But when things are packed up, there's nothing rattling around inside the pot.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Orange County, CA, USA
Re: Burner doesn't nest in 1.0L on 12/21/2013 11:07:53 MST Print View

Steve,

Actually it does fit, although there's a bit of a trick to it. The burner goes in last, and you have to angle the valve spindle into the pour spout.


Full instructions are on my blog at The New, Lighter 1.0L MSR Reactor

HJ
Adventures in Stoving
Hikin Jim's Blog

Gary Dunckel
(Zia-Grill-Guy) - MLife

Locale: Boulder
Burner DOES nest in 1.0L on 12/21/2013 12:02:54 MST Print View

Thanks for showing us the technique, Jim. I was going nuts trying to figure out how to do it myself, and then I saw your blog post on it. I had to open the valve 1/4 turn in order to get the handle in the right spot (so I have to remember to turn it back closed before screwing the canister on).

Charley White
(charleywhite) - M

Locale: Petaluma, CA
gas & naptha on 12/21/2013 12:23:36 MST Print View

Jim--here's my shade-tree automotive engineer take. The explanation of the evolution of automotive gasoline sounds good, but the text from the Coleman site is less...illuminating. I think it's all/only in the additives. A while ago I started disposing of my old white gas in my truck gas tank. May be only due to dilution, but no knocks heard, no rough running.

Naptha is like "benzine": precise formula varies with country where spoken. I do know from working on an oil candle stove, naptha sold here is not gasoline of any kind. It burns in a wick way cleaner than diesel or gasoline (wouldn't even try) or kerosene. Painters naptha burns cleanly....and suspiciously similarly to Lamplighter Lamp Oil--just not as scented. I think Ronsonol lighter fluid is "naphtha." Charcoal lighter too, though maybe kerosene?

Thanks for Reactor update.

Edited by charleywhite on 12/22/2013 10:50:55 MST.

Steve Sandifur
(STS)
Burner fitting in Reactor on 12/22/2013 07:57:52 MST Print View

I appreciate the advice on fitting the burner in the stove as well as the link to your blog.It's probably the best review I've seen on any product.

I was a bit apprehensive forcing the burner into the stove,but all appears well.It's definitely a tight fit.

Once again,thanks for the help.

hwc 1954
(wcollings) - M
1-liter tight fit on 12/22/2013 13:57:47 MST Print View

I have the 1.0 liter Reactor. Love it, but I do wish they have made the pot 1 mm wider in diameter for a slightly easier time getting the burner into and out of the pot! Sheesh. Talk about fitting like a glove....