Ultra-Light check list

Questions or comments about hiking in general? Post them here!
User avatar
DarenN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Surrey, B.C. Canada

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by DarenN » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:09 pm

dlarson wrote:Thanks Darren! It looks like the boil time was increased by 1:30 to 2:10 minutes with titanium depending on the flame distance.
It seems like the increased fuel usage would be negligible for weekend hikes. For longer trips it could add up though.
my comparative testing did not show as much difference as reported on this page.

depending on the burner, (i tested lots of different ones), the boil time increased by not more than 30 seconds. i'd call that negligeble even for a longer trip.

test pots were the MSR Ti Mug (4.5" round x 3.5" high), and an old aluminum camping pot (5" round x 4" high).

Daren......
"I'd rather be happy than right." Slartibartfast

Tony
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:46 pm
Location: Canberra Australia
Contact:

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by Tony » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:20 am

I have done some efficiency testing using a MSR Pocket Rocket canister stove with Al, Ti and SS pots all about the same size and there is not much in it.
As mentioned in previous posts Al has the best thermal conductivity at 204W/m.K with Ti at 15.5 W/m.K and SS at 14 W/m.K but for some reason the Al pot performed the worst with Ti the best. When looking at heat transfer from flame to the pot, the thickness of the material is an important factor, as the pots we use are very thin this negates most of the the thermal conductivity difference. Surface area has more influence. Surface finish and emissivity also have some effect on heat transfer But actually there was very little difference and all pots of the same size used about the same amount of fuel to boil the same amount of water. In my view choice of pot basically come down to weight of the pot.

I have seen the same results with alcohol stoves

Tony

User avatar
dlarson
Site Admin
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:02 pm
Location: minnesota

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by dlarson » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:37 am

Tony wrote:When looking at heat transfer from flame to the pot, the thickness of the material is an important factor, as the pots we use are very thin this negates most of the the thermal conductivity difference.
Thanks Tony, I was thinking about that but didn't mention it in my earlier post. Samh was telling me that it isn't that Ti is lighter than Al, it's just so strong that stuff can be made less beefy (Yes, I believe that is the scientific terminology) and therefore weight is saved when compared to softer metals like Al.
Tony wrote:emissivity
Had to look that one up! :oops:
DarenN wrote:my comparative testing did not show as much difference as reported on this page.
Tony wrote:In my view choice of pot basically come down to weight of the pot.
That's what I was hoping/thinking. A lot of lightweight backpackers use Ti pots so it seemed to me that there couldn't be that much difference from Al. Excellent! :D
"Hiking is just walking where it's O.K. to pee." -Demetri Martin

User avatar
Ridgerunner
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:08 pm
Location: SW, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by Ridgerunner » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:06 am

That's what I was hoping/thinking. A lot of lightweight backpackers use Ti pots so it seemed to me that there couldn't be that much difference from Al. Excellent!
Maybe not that big of difference in performance but actually there is a big difference and it comes in the form of cost $$$ :lol:
"Many of lifes failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up".....Thomas Edison

"Live Life....Love Life....Ask More !

User avatar
zelph
Posts: 15834
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by zelph » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:00 am

I've seen some beefy luminum pots that are light weight.

McDonalds says their burgers are less beefy, more filler and less weight, healthier also :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/

User avatar
dlarson
Site Admin
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:02 pm
Location: minnesota

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by dlarson » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:08 am

Ridgerunner, the cost is well worth the weight savings in my book. Seems reasonable to me! :mrgreen:

Zelph, my current pots are the GSI Halulite Double Boiler http://www.mountainsports.com/MSmain.as ... ail=006376.
I can't find any info about this metal anywhere other than its some proprietary alloy... hard anodized and probably an aluminum base material. GSI claims it's as light as Ti. Even if it is, I doubt it's as strong, which brings me to my point. My pots are 13oz!! If it was as strong as Ti my pots would weigh less!
I can get a SnowPeak setup that's basically the same as what I currently have except in Ti and only 5.5oz. http://www.rei.com/product/668926
Where's the beef? Well, it won't be in my pack! :)
"Hiking is just walking where it's O.K. to pee." -Demetri Martin

User avatar
russb
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:41 am
Location: New York

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by russb » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:14 am

AGG has quite a few pot combos for sale which list the volumes and weights in an easy to read table: http://www.antigravitygear.com/cookware.php#cookware04

At 13oz for your current setup 1.5L total volume has many other lighter options in both Al and Ti for the same volume. For ex the 3rd on the list is Al and is about 11oz, the Ti version just below it (same company) is about 9 oz (no frying pan lid though).

Interestingly when I scroll up to look at the solo pots, the AGG 3 cup (850mL at 107g in Al) is quite comparable to the Vargo .9L (900mL at 112g in Ti) both are non-stick.

Another ex is the AGG 2-qt Al (non stick) it is 1.9L and 165g, the evernew Ti (non stick w/handles) is 1.9L and 244g. (the aluminum clamp handle is 34g).

As I have always said when weight is most important all that matters is the final weight, and not whether the item is Ti or Al, non-stick or not, insulated handles/not etc...

Oh, my IMUSA grease pot with lid is 3.8oz (108g) as is the Kmart grease pot (Stanco).

User avatar
zelph
Posts: 15834
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by zelph » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:00 am

dlarson wrote:Ridgerunner, the cost is well worth the weight savings in my book. Seems reasonable to me! :mrgreen:

Zelph, my current pots are the GSI Halulite Double Boiler http://www.mountainsports.com/MSmain.as ... ail=006376.
I can't find any info about this metal anywhere other than its some proprietary alloy... hard anodized and probably an aluminum base material. GSI claims it's as light as Ti. Even if it is, I doubt it's as strong, which brings me to my point. My pots are 13oz!! If it was as strong as Ti my pots would weigh less!
I can get a SnowPeak setup that's basically the same as what I currently have except in Ti and only 5.5oz. http://www.rei.com/product/668926
Where's the beef? Well, it won't be in my pack! :)
I would choose the set that you have. Longer insulated(sure grip) handles are much better than the stubby uninsulated ones on the snow peak.

If it's strength and less weight that you prefer buy Ti.
http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/

User avatar
DarenN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Surrey, B.C. Canada

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by DarenN » Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:07 am

link talks about packing light,

http://www.nessmuking.com/nessmuking.htm

....
"I'd rather be happy than right." Slartibartfast

User avatar
zelph
Posts: 15834
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: Ultra-Light check list

Post by zelph » Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:50 pm

russb wrote:AGG has quite a few pot combos for sale which list the volumes and weights in an easy to read table: http://www.antigravitygear.com/cookware.php#cookware04

Oh, my IMUSA grease pot with lid is 3.8oz (108g) as is the Kmart grease pot (Stanco).
Agree, it's a nice way to list them and see the weight comparisons. Nice link, thank you.
Lightweight Kayaking
Canoeing is much closer to hiking when gear needs are considered (because weight on the portages is paramount), than canoeing is to kayaking, so lightweight kayaking may seem a little alien to most hikers and canoeist, but with the momentum of Ultralight backpacking influencing every gear manufacturer, kayakers were quick to jump on board. Its philosophy assumes an experienced kayaker who wants to fine-tune their cargo. In order of importance, lightweight kayaking's key beliefs are that all the gear you use should fulfill the following factors: Space, Versatility, Reliability, Convenience, and Weight. So, if you subscribe to this philosophy, the size of an item comes before versatility and weight comes after convenience. While a found philosophy for kayaking, it concentrates on the packing needs only. If only they could understand the core of Nessmuking.
The above is quoted from Daren's link. Interesting what is said about canoeing being closer to hiking when gear needs are considered. Lots of good reading there daren. Thank You.
http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/

Post Reply