Canister vs. Liquid fuel

[BowGal]

I’ve never had a problem using canister stoves on 4-5 day trips, and quite happy with my MSR. Today I saw the Primus Omnifuel II on Massdrop. It prompted me to Google videos about which might be better: canister or liquid. For the video, I gleaned the following:

Fuel
Canister - pre-pressurized. Performance will change if colder temperatures.
Liquid - also effected by cold, but pump can add pressure, and operate at many types of conditions

Versatility
Canister - you can swap, but must have same thread count
Liquid - multiple fuels including diesel, white gas, naphtha, kerosene

Efficiency
Canister - because pot is put on top of the canister, without a windscreen, you lose heat.
Liquid - . Bottle is separate from the burner. Use foldable heat reflector on bottom and windscreen

I understand there is more maintenance with a liquid stove.

So...WB experts...has anyone opted for a liquid fuel system over a canister?
I know you’re carrying a bottle of fuel that is heavier than carrying a canister.

For the AT, with varying weather conditions, would it be prudent maybe to go with a liquid system?
I also like the idea of knowing how much fuel is left in my bottle versus guessing how much fuel is in the canister.

Thanks

BowGal

[BowGal]

Should have considered cost as well.
MSR says on their site:
In most cases, canister stoves cost less than liquid fuel stoves. At the same time, canister fuel often costs considerably more than liquid fuel. For reference, one hour of cooking time on a canister fuel stove will cost you about $6.00, while an hour of cooking time on white gas is closer to $1.50 and other liquid fuels may be even less. If you’re going to use your stove a lot, the low operating cost of liquid fuel is the only way to go

Seems like the advantages favor liquid stoves. Yes? No?

[bigcranky]

Liquid fuel stoves were the default years ago, mostly because there weren't many choices and the only canister stove available was fussy and a total PITA to use. We used one on our first long family section hike in 2003.

I went through a ten year "stoveaholic" phase in which I bought or made and hiked with every stove I could. Fun times. My take on it is this:

"Coleman" fuel (naptha) stoves: generally heavier, often less efficient, sometimes difficult to resupply small amounts of fuel, environmentally better, take longer to get started, some fire risk (the Whisperlite was called the Shelter Torch for a reason), usually works better in cold weather. Need periodic maintenance.

Canisters: super convenient to use, can be much more fuel efficient depending on stove design, faster to light and use, terrible for the environment with the single-use canisters, which can be hard to find sometimes, often don't work in very cold weather, and one usually needs to carry a second canister at least some of the time. Yes, the fuel costs more.

I think that an AT thru-hike is probably the best case scenario for a canister stove. Yes, there's some cold weather at the start, but most of it is generally pleasant weather. Resupply of canisters is fairly easy. The convenience factor helps when getting on the trail quickly in the morning. Most of the hikers I see these days use canisters or alcohol, I've not seen liquid fuel stoves at all except for a few old guys carrying their original Svea from 1971 (and you know who you are ) That Primus Omnifuel II weighs almost a pound by itself, no cook set, which is heavy for an AT thru hike considering the terrain, weather, etc. I'd consider it for a winter thru-hike, or a long unsupported hike in a remote area.

[Leo L.]

I always was a heavy user of liquid fuel (car gas) stoves. We did full cooking with these for months. Hardly ever failed, easy to maintain and repair. Very high power, little problem in wind.
But then, this was mostly travelling by car or motorcycle.
Only once did we use the fuel stove for mountaineering (which saved our ass in the severe cold then).

I would not recommend a fuel stove for light&fast hiking.
One point being, it would be difficult to get just the right amount of car gas (or whatever liquid fuel you're using) at supply points, so you might end up carrying a full car gas canister, slowly emptying it over weeks.
Another point, would you like to smell like a leaky gas station the whole time?

Remembers me on one backpacking girl we saw in Canyonlands, close to The Confluence (of the Green and the Colorado).
She was carrying a full jerrycan of Colman fuel in her hands. Said, she had not been able to buy smaller amounts.

[moldy]

Liquid fuel stoves smell bad and smoke at times. Also, You can't bring it on an airplane. With you canister stove you can bring it on the airplane minus the canister. Also on long trips it's safer to carry an extra canister than an extra bottle of gasoline...

[BowGal]

I hadn’t even considered how difficult it’d be to buy small amounts of liquid fuel....compared to the wide availability of canisters.

[Starchild]

I’ve never had a problem using canister stoves on 4-5 day trips, and quite happy with my MSR. Today I saw the Primus Omnifuel II on Massdrop. It prompted me to Google videos about which might be better: canister or liquid. For the video, I gleaned the following:

Here are my comments on your points:

Fuel
Canister - pre-pressurized. Performance will change if colder temperatures.
Liquid - also effected by cold, but pump can add pressure, and operate at many types of conditions

Canisters are affected by cold, that temperature will depend on your stove as some compensate better then others, the brand of fuel you select, some such as Snow Peak have a lower operating temperature then Coleman, with various inbetween fuels. This is because it is a blended fuel, and how they blend it will affect its cold temp performance. Also how low a canister is in terms of fuel level matters, the more empty it is the worse it will preform at low temperatures. Additionally they will do better at higher altitudes due to lower air pressure will provide a greater pressure differential between the inside of the canister and the outside air pressure. In practical terms any canister stove will work well at temperatures above 30F, if you expect temperatures below that you need to take precautions such as sleeping with your canister, using a stove that has a regulator designed for low temperatures, selecting the correct fuel brand and having a full canister. With these precautions I have had no issue with a Jetboil stove down to 10F on my thru. Also see the note below with the *

Liquid fuel is the standard for low temperature hiking, around 20F and below (again you might be able to get away with a good canister stove, but if temps are going to be that low, better with liquid)

Versatility
Canister - you can swap, but must have same thread count
Liquid - multiple fuels including diesel, white gas, naphtha, kerosene

Canisters - almost everything you will find will fit. There are a few oddballs out there, but basically a non-issue. Also realize that large green propane cylinders are different altogether.

Liquids - No you can't use any fuel unless the stove is designed for multi fuel it either will not work or cause problems which may or may not be cleanable/repairable. Even if you have a multi fuel stove you will need to clean it often if you use dirty fuels.

Efficiency
Canister - because pot is put on top of the canister, without a windscreen, you lose heat.
Liquid - . Bottle is separate from the burner. Use foldable heat reflector on bottom and windscreen

*Note there are inverted canister stoves which do have/can use windscreens and also have better low temperature performances then even the ones with the low temperature regulator ones like I mentioned earlier.

You can use a windscreen with a canister, and some have them, though you have to be careful and understand how they work, and not overheat the regulator or fuel can. Also canister stoves are some of the most efficient of any camp stove, but it is those with heat exchangers such as the Jetboil. Though high efficiency doesn't really help for shorter trips as long as you only need one canister for that trip.

Liquid fuel has a inefficient starting/priming step where fuel is wasted in vaporizing the stove. Efficiency depends on the length of the cooking compared to the initial wasting, so the longer the cook time the more efficient.

I understand there is more maintenance with a liquid stove.

And there is no maintenance with a canister.

Liquids were the first and still the preferred fuel by those who like them (we have a few liquid fuel purists), and for extreme temps and for cooking large amounts.

Canisters outside those conditions listed above really does everything the liquid fuel does but quicker & easier.

So...WB experts...has anyone opted for a liquid fuel system over a canister?
I know you’re carrying a bottle of fuel that is heavier than carrying a canister.

For the AT, with varying weather conditions, would it be prudent maybe to go with a liquid system?
I also like the idea of knowing how much fuel is left in my bottle versus guessing how much fuel is in the canister.

Thanks

BowGal[/QUOTE]

[HooKooDooKu]

Here are my comments on your points:
*Note there are inverted canister stoves which do have/can use windscreens

Beyond "inverted" canister stoves, there is a more generic class known as "remote" canister stoves.
Basically, just like a typical liquid stove, these stoves separate the canister from the stove via a fuel hose. These have been around for several years and it's only recently that manufacturers got the idea to add a canister holder to this setup such that it would allow you to invert the canister.
But the point is, with remote canister stoves, you remove any limitations on windscreens.
However, an additional "option" you could point out between canister and fuel is that "most" options available for canister stoves are lighter than "most" options for liquid fuel stoves... because with a canister stove there is the option to purchase a stove designed to fit directly on top of the canister.

[Dogwood]

...I think that an AT thru-hike is probably the best case scenario for a canister stove. Yes, there's some cold weather at the start, but most of it is generally pleasant weather. Resupply of canisters is fairly easy. The convenience factor helps when getting on the trail quickly in the morning. Most of the hikers I see these days use canisters or alcohol, I've not seen liquid fuel stoves at all except for a few old guys carrying their original Svea from 1971 (and you know who you are ) That Primus Omnifuel II weighs almost a pound by itself, no cook set, which is heavy for an AT thru hike considering the terrain, weather, etc. I'd consider it for a winter thru-hike, or a long unsupported hike in a remote area.

^^^^^
Big Cranky 10 10 10 10 10

You already have the MSR iso gas stove. You're happy with using it. Go with it. Adjust your can usage logistics not your gear. Don't over think it. You'll work this out on your hike. This isn't that critical as in life or death. Don't think gear in itself magically solves all issues. Work out your salvation...your hike. HYOH

[bigcranky]

^^^^^
Big Cranky 10 10 10 10 10

Man, even the Russian judge gave me a good score.

[Dogwood]

[Feral Bill]

I've been using the same Svea white gas stove for 49 years without any problems. This is longer than any backpacking stove design on the market has even existed. Maintenance has been replacement of filler cap gaskets (<$1 and 5 minutes) every few years, and very occasional cleaning of the jet (1 minute, last in 2004). A gallon of fuel costs $12 and lasts for 40 days or more on the trail. Only downsides are air travel, which I avoid, and buying small amounts for resupply, which I have not had need for yet.

[TX Aggie]

I just got an MSR Whisperlight for winter use, I also have an alcohol stove and an MSR Pocket Rocket (1). I like them all for different reasons and use them depending on conditions:

Whisperlight: I only use this for sub-freezing camping. I just don’t see any advantage for it if temps are above freezing.

Pocket Rocket: the canister is great for times when I want quick and easy and I don’t mind the few extra ounces of the canister. It’s also my go to when backpacking with my daughters because it easily heats up large amounts of water.

Alcohol: when weight is primary concern and I want to be light and fast or just to enjoy the simplicity of the alcohol stove.

My $.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Night Train]

Strictly, an opinion, but maybe try both options and see what YOU prefer.

[Slo-go'en]

MSR whisper lites, which it sounds like you were describing, tend to be fussy stoves. I've seen more then one burst into a ball of flames due to over pressure and/or loose fittings.

Saw a guy nearly set fire to another hikers pack when he kicked his fuel bottle out of the shelter as it spit fire all around. Amazing no one got hurt or anything else actually caught fire. As a caretaker back when, I used to have to deal with exploding white gas stoves on a regular basis. Coleman Peak 1 stoves were a prime culprit. When I saw one of those come out, I stood back.

White gas stoves used to be the only real choice. Glad to seem them go. I still fire up my SEVA 123 stove once in a while

for nostalgia.

[bigcranky]

I had a Coleman Peak 1 and it exploded in the Thomas Knob shelter on a very cold stormy April evening, probably around 1994 or '95. No hot meal for me that night

[nsherry61]

I have several MSR liquid fuel stoves that were my only stoves in the 70's, and my winter stoves into the last decade. Then I read about placing a copper strip on the side of the canister that reaches up into the flame to keep the canister warm, and it works very well down to at least zero temps (F) for me (haven't tested the lower limits of this system). So lately, I've been using my little BRS-3000T with my "winter mod" for all my winter camping. Super light. Super simple. Super small and Super cheap (even though I already have the other stoves).

[4eyedbuzzard]

...Canisters: super convenient to use, can be much more fuel efficient depending on stove design, faster to light and use, terrible for the environment with the single-use canisters, which can be hard to find sometimes, often don't work in very cold weather, and one usually needs to carry a second canister at least some of the time. Yes, the fuel costs more.

Steel, which is what canisters are made of, is probably the most recycled material in the world by percentage. 85-90% of steel is recycled, as opposed to only about 30% of plastic bottles, and less than 10% of plastics overall. Used steel canisters are far more likely to wind up magnetically sorted from the waste stream than plastic HEET or the smaller 32 oz plastic Coleman bottles.

[DownEaster]

I'm heading for the AT this month with a liquid fuel stove, a Primus OmniLite Ti. (This stove will also use pretty much any fuel except alcohol, and I'm also taking the nozzle to let me switch to canister fuel.) I like to do real cooking rather than just boil water, and a 750 ml fuel bottle will let me cook as much as I want.

If I can only find Coleman fuel in quarts I can pour as much as I want to carry into my fuel bottle, leave the rest of the quart in a hiker box, and still come out ahead on price compared to canisters.

[Singto]

MSR stove, canister and butt pad wind break. ..keep it simple and practical.