PDA

View Full Version : 12-10 stove vs Fancee Feast



trailmercury
12-15-2016, 18:05
Let's say the windscreen used was equally efficient, Does anybody see a notable difference or an advantage of the caldera cone stove (12-10) over a Fancee Feast? One could use a caldera cone device with a Fancee Feast Stove, correct?

Thanks for the feedback!

zelph
12-15-2016, 20:44
The Fancee Feest is more efficient because it does not require priming, especially in cold weather.

There are folks using the Fancee Feest with the Caldera Cones. They have mentioned it on backpackinglight.com

swisscross
12-15-2016, 21:00
But why would you is the question. The cone is the pot stand. Wouldn't the starlyte be a better option?

SWODaddy
12-16-2016, 00:17
I've tried a bunch of stoves, and the 12-10 is the most efficient stove for the caldera cone setup in my opinion. The starlyte is a very close second.

SWODaddy
12-16-2016, 00:18
Also, I'm not sure the 12-10 has to bloom at all. It's light and go.

Engine
12-16-2016, 05:51
When I purchased my Caldera cone I got the Starlite as well as the 12-10 and tested them both. The Starlite was a tad slower coming to a boil, but it burned significantly longer on the same amount of fuel. It would also produce a boil on less fuel than the 12-10 was capable of. Add in the fact the 12-10 was finicky about blooming and for me the decision was pretty easy.

trailmercury
12-16-2016, 12:08
The Fancee Feest is more efficient because it does not require priming, especially in cold weather.

There are folks using the Fancee Feest with the Caldera Cones. They have mentioned it on backpackinglight.com

A link to the thread(s) please ...I am a member over there but have difficulty searching that site. Thanks!

SWODaddy
12-16-2016, 13:35
When I purchased my Caldera cone I got the Starlite as well as the 12-10 and tested them both. The Starlite was a tad slower coming to a boil, but it burned significantly longer on the same amount of fuel. It would also produce a boil on less fuel than the 12-10 was capable of. Add in the fact the 12-10 was finicky about blooming and for me the decision was pretty easy.

Does your starlyte have the simmer ring? I probably should have noted mine is the full bore model.

FWIW, I've gotten ~40min of burn time off of 2oz(I think) of fuel with the 12-10 stove using a simmer ring. Pretty neat being able to bake a small loaf of banana bread using a caldera cone.

Engine
12-16-2016, 16:06
Does your starlyte have the simmer ring? I probably should have noted mine is the full bore model.

FWIW, I've gotten ~40min of burn time off of 2oz(I think) of fuel with the 12-10 stove using a simmer ring. Pretty neat being able to bake a small loaf of banana bread using a caldera cone.

I did receive the Starlyte model with the simmer ring. I've heard so many good things about the 12-10, and it's probably something I'm doing wrong, but I cannot seem to get mine to bloom well. I am looking forward to trying some baking on the trail. The thought of fresh baked "anything" sounds so good after a week or so on the trail.

zelph
12-16-2016, 23:07
A link to the thread(s) please ...I am a member over there but have difficulty searching that site. Thanks!

Here ya go:

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/69124/

russb
12-17-2016, 08:50
You would certainly notice a difference at minus 10. In the extreme cold, a wick based stove like the fancee feest or starlyte is significantly superior. If one doesn't need a stove at subzero, then the 12-10 is ok.

Speaking of the starlyte, I should take my original out of retirement for this winter. IME the original design (pre SS mesh) is better in the extreme cold, but with longevity drawbacks.

zelph
12-17-2016, 18:10
The 12-10 is built just like the Featherfire, both have small openings where the fuel is poured into and ignited. The lack of oxygen in and around the hole makes for hard starting in cool weather using a mini bic(most common used source of ignition) I performed extensive tests on the Featherfire so I know the ins and outs of that type stove/burner. 12-10 is on the left, featherfire on the right. Featherfire design came out first and then 12-10 . Trail Designs used almost the same type of simmering at a later date.

russb......it's nice to be able to go back in old threads to see how different DIY stoves evolved. Filling the original like the one you have was a little slow to do. That's why the stainless steel mesh came into play.

3745837459

zelph
12-18-2016, 13:49
I did receive the Starlyte model with the simmer ring. I've heard so many good things about the 12-10, and it's probably something I'm doing wrong, but I cannot seem to get mine to bloom well. I am looking forward to trying some baking on the trail. The thought of fresh baked "anything" sounds so good after a week or so on the trail.

The Featherfire requires up to 60 seconds to get to full bloom. What does the instructions say about lighting the 12-10? You might try adding more fuel into it but the remaining fuel needs to be removed once water boils. The Featherfire folks sells a bottle with a long tube used to remove leftover fuel.

trailmercury
12-27-2016, 16:41
When I purchased my Caldera cone I got the Starlite as well as the 12-10 and tested them both. The Starlite was a tad slower coming to a boil, but it burned significantly longer on the same amount of fuel. It would also produce a boil on less fuel than the 12-10 was capable of. Add in the fact the 12-10 was finicky about blooming and for me the decision was pretty easy.
What Caldera did you get?
I'm very intrigued by the "Ti-Tri" concept...Is the weight penalty to be able to have three fuel options worth it on a Thru?

fastfoxengineering
12-28-2016, 06:44
I had a CC ti-tri for a long time. Used it extensively. In short, it's a really good stove. Long story....

I used the ti-tri sidewinder in all configurations with an evernew 1.3L pot. Mostly in wood burning mode with the inferno. It worked very well IMO and couldn't really ask for a better, lighter, more compact wood burner.

I would recommend it. Now I'll just say what I didn't like about it.

The floor. I hated the floor it came with. It would never lay flat after being rolled up and stored in the pot. My solution I believe was a much better design. All I did was take a sheet of titanium and cut a diameter to fit the bottom of my pot... It was just slightly larger than the bottom diameter of the inferno insert, always layed flat, and was easier to store in my pot. One less thing to roll up and get your hands sooty. I now make a titanium floor for all my cook pots. They help the effiency of all types of stoves. I would recommend not buying the optional floor. Buying a small sheet of titanium from Dutch and cutting a diameter to size your pot. This is only good if you use the inferno because the diameter of the cone is larger than the diameter of the pot. I really, really liked this method more.

The stakes. I hate packing extra stuff and these don't fit in the pot. They have to be stored separately. I find that a small nuisance. They add weight to my kit cause I'm not substituting these for my tarp stakes. What if I want to have my tarp pitched and burn wood at the same time. I guess I get the benefit of extra stakes. But I have to carry the weight.

It's messier than other wood burners. Because you have to roll it up. Your hands will get more soot on them than other wood burners. Once you do it a few times it's not bad, but it is messier than others.

There's a ton of pieces. Almost all my setups have no more than 3-4 pieces. This has like 6+. I keep a keep it simple approach toward lightweight backpacking gear.

It's not bomb proof. It's made of titanium sheeting. I repeat. It is not bomb proof and stepping on it or similar will really mess it up. Yes it can be reformed. I'll give it credit, it's titanium. But it does need to be handled with care. If you have any titanium sheeting laying around. Bend it and it will fatigue.

Packing it up. You need to roll it into a tight cylinder for it too pack away correctly. I could see a potential for cutting oneself on the thin titanium.

It needs constant attention. As do all compact multi fuel stoves. Especially wood burners.

Would I buy it again. Yes, for one of my smaller pots. Having a woodburner is a million times better than cooking on an open fire. So much more efficient and way easier to get going.

At this point in time I think it's the best option out there in its class. I plan on basing my own creation on the basic principles of the ti-tri. I just want to make it simpler. It's hard to do though, as it's a really strong design.

That floor sucks though. Its my first and only improvement.




Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Traillium
12-29-2016, 01:21
I had a CC ti-tri for a long time. Used it extensively. In short, it's a really good stove. Long story....

I used the ti-tri sidewinder in all configurations with an evernew 1.3L pot. Mostly in wood burning mode with the inferno. It worked very well IMO and couldn't really ask for a better, lighter, more compact wood burner.

I would recommend it. Now I'll just say what I didn't like about it.

The floor. I hated the floor it came with. It would never lay flat after being rolled up and stored in the pot. My solution I believe was a much better design. All I did was take a sheet of titanium and cut a diameter to fit the bottom of my pot... It was just slightly larger than the bottom diameter of the inferno insert, always layed flat, and was easier to store in my pot. One less thing to roll up and get your hands sooty. I now make a titanium floor for all my cook pots. They help the effiency of all types of stoves. I would recommend not buying the optional floor. Buying a small sheet of titanium from Dutch and cutting a diameter to size your pot. This is only good if you use the inferno because the diameter of the cone is larger than the diameter of the pot. I really, really liked this method more.

The stakes. I hate packing extra stuff and these don't fit in the pot. They have to be stored separately. I find that a small nuisance. They add weight to my kit cause I'm not substituting these for my tarp stakes. What if I want to have my tarp pitched and burn wood at the same time. I guess I get the benefit of extra stakes. But I have to carry the weight.

It's messier than other wood burners. Because you have to roll it up. Your hands will get more soot on them than other wood burners. Once you do it a few times it's not bad, but it is messier than others.

There's a ton of pieces. Almost all my setups have no more than 3-4 pieces. This has like 6+. I keep a keep it simple approach toward lightweight backpacking gear.

It's not bomb proof. It's made of titanium sheeting. I repeat. It is not bomb proof and stepping on it or similar will really mess it up. Yes it can be reformed. I'll give it credit, it's titanium. But it does need to be handled with care. If you have any titanium sheeting laying around. Bend it and it will fatigue.

Packing it up. You need to roll it into a tight cylinder for it too pack away correctly. I could see a potential for cutting oneself on the thin titanium.

It needs constant attention. As do all compact multi fuel stoves. Especially wood burners.

Would I buy it again. Yes, for one of my smaller pots. Having a woodburner is a million times better than cooking on an open fire. So much more efficient and way easier to get going.

At this point in time I think it's the best option out there in its class. I plan on basing my own creation on the basic principles of the ti-tri. I just want to make it simpler. It's hard to do though, as it's a really strong design.

That floor sucks though. Its my first and only improvement.


An accurate review from my perspective. (I've not had durability issues so far in my limited experience.) I like the idea of a better floor for the wood burning Inferno.