The New MSR Windburner – "First Look" Report

MSR (Mountain Safety Research, Seattle, WA, USA, a division of Cascade Designs) has come out with a new stove system:  The Windburner.  I just got it on Friday, but I thought I'd share with you a few photos as a sort of a "first look" at this new stove system.  This looks like MSR's attempt to bring it's windproof Reactor technology to the masses and compete with JetBoil head on.  I'll discuss my thoughts on the Windburner vs. the Jetboil as well as the future of the Reactor line of stoves in a bit, but first let's review the features.  I'll include a table of component weights in the appendix at the end.

UPDATE, 8 November 2014:  I've revised the component weights in the appendix to list the cozy/handle assembly and the pot (bare metal only) as two separate figures.  For those wishing to lighten the unit, the cozy could be left at home, saving 49g/1.7 oz.  Likewise, the bowl could be left at home, saving 32g/1.1 oz.  If both the cozy and the bowl were left at home, one would save 81g/2.8 oz.   Interestingly, in this configuration, the Windburner would be only about 1 oz. heavier than the stated 12 oz. weight of the Jetboil Zip.  Of course,  if one had a Zip, one could also leave behind the cup and cozy.  I mention the weight merely for comparative purposes.

UPDATE, 7 January 2015:  I've received a note from MSR stating that production units are coming in heavier than the prototype units that the weights were calculated from.  MSR gave me a range.  Basically the unit I received is about in the middle of that range.  A weight just over 16 ounces should be about the weight of a unit that you would receive should you purchase one.  I might add that MSR was a bit chagrined about the miscalculation of the weights since they try to be transparent about such things.  I don't yet have an exact number for the revised stated weight, but it should be about 460 grams/16.2 ounces.

MSR Windburner Posts

• "First Look" Report
• Trail Report #1
• Hanging Kit I
• Lighting the Windburner
• Wind Testing
• Coffee Press
• Hanging Kit II
• MSR Windburner – Three Things to Note
• Cooking Ability
• Final, Completed Review

Features
So here it is, a very nice integrated canister stove system, the MSR Windburner:

The new (2014) MSR Windburner.  About 104mm by 171mm, packed.

Packed Dimensions:  The pot is about 104 mm/4.1" wide at the lip.  The lid extends out another millimeter or so beyond the lip of the pot.  The handle when folded for stowage adds about 1 cm/0.4" to the width.  When packed, the Windburner is about 171 mm/6.7" tall.  The handle when folded for stowage adds another 5mm/0.2" to the height, but the handle is soft nylon at that point and it can be squished down.  About 2mm/0.08" is the actual jut up above the lid if the handle is squished down.

The first thing I noticed was the cup on the bottom.  It's got a capacity of 500ml which is pretty nice.  Really, it's big enough to be used as a bowl as well as a cup.  Throw a spoon in your pack, and basically you've got a complete cooking and eating set up.  Note:  The pot is anodized aluminum; it's probably best to use a plastic (or other non-metal) spoon to avoid scratching.

The cup/bowl affixes very firmly to the bottom of the pot.  I can't see that cup/bowl ever falling off inside your pack.  In fact, I found the cup/bowl annoyingly difficult to remove.  Perhaps it will become easier with time.  Maybe I'm missing something, but I think it would be difficult to remove the pot with mittens on, at least while the bowl is new.  Perhaps a bit of sandpaper on the little plastic tabs that hold the bowl on is in order.

The cup/bowl is marked as being able to withstand temperatures up to 220° F/105° C.  In other words, the cup can handle water at full boil.

The Windburner's cup/bowl has a capacity of 500 ml/16.9 fl oz and can withstand temperatures up to 220° F/105° C.

Inside the cup/bowl are volumetric markings in both metric and English units.

The cup/bowl has both English and metric markings.

The cup/bowl is big enough to accommodate a standard 110g gas canister.

A 110g gas canister fits inside the cup/bowl

Now, I know what you're thinking.  You're thinking, "why the heck would I want to put a gas canister in the bowl?  I'm not going to eat the danged thing!"  Well, quite right, but think about cold weather.  An upright canister stove like the Windburner has a cold weather lower operating limit of about 20° F/-7°C.  How do you safely keep your stove going when the weather starts approaching 20° F/-7°C?  You put the canister in warmish water of course.  Note:  Never use hot water; that could be quite dangerous.  Isobutane will continue to vaporize and have good pressure if it is kept above that 20° F/-7°C lower limit.  Water freezes at 32°F/0°C, so liquid water will always be well above the the lower operating limit of the Windburner.  As long as the water remains liquid, the canister should have enough gas pressure to run your stove well.  Obviously, it's not essential to have the bowl be able to accommodate a canister; I mean you could bring a separate bowl, right?   But why bother when you've already got a bowl on hand?  Multi-use is the name of the weight saving game when you're carrying everything on your back.  I think this is a nice feature for climbers or others who go out in cold weather.

The lid from the Windburner's pot doubles as a lid for the bowl.  And it's not a kludge either; it's a perfect fit.

The lid from the Windburner's pot fits perfectly on to the cup/bowl.

Since I'm on the subject, the Windburner's pot lid is a pretty nice lid.  As you can see in the above photo, the pot lid has both a drinking hole as well as a strainer.  The central hole will support a coffee press (sold separately) for your morning brew.  The lid also has a nice tab which helps pop the lid off.  The lid fits quite tightly on both the pot and the cup/bowl and will not fall off easily inside your pack when the stove is packed.

The Windburner's lid has a convenient tab for easy removal of the lid from the pot or cup/bowl.

After looking at the cup/bowl and lid, the next thing that struck me was the pot's handle.

The pot handle of the Windburner appears to be woven nylon containing plastic stiffeners

Gone is the "flop over the top" handle that has been characteristic of the Reactor line of stoves from MSR.  Unlike the strap on the side of a Jetboil pot, the Windburner's handle is truly a handle.  It can be used to lift the pot or for pouring.

The handle of the Windburner is stiff enough to use for pouring.

One of the complaints about the Jetboil is that their handle is really more of a strap.  You're supposed to slide your hand under the strap on a Jetboil and hold the pot by the cozy.  Not so with the Windburner.  The lower part of the handle is affixed directly to the cozy.  The handle appears to be of woven nylon with plastic stiffeners inside.  The combination of stiffness and a fixed point at the base of the handle gives one good leverage and control, yet the handle folds flat for when you want to put it in your pack.  Pretty nice.  Good job, MSR.

The cozy itself is interesting.  The cozy on a Jetboil appears to be made of neoprene with a nylon facing.  The Windburner's cozy, from what I could tell without tearing things apart, consists of "ribs" made of some high temperature plastic over which is affixed a nylon cover.  I note that the nylon cover does have rather appealing artwork.  If you look closely at the below photo, you may be able to see the "ribs" underlying the nylon cover.

The Windburner's pot cozy

As to the pot itself, it's a nicely anodized aluminum pot.  The interior of the pot has volumetric markings in both English and metric units.

The inside of the Windburner's pot. Note volumetric markings.

The base of the pot has a Reactor type heat exchanger consisting of fins and exhaust vents.  See my review of the Reactor for a discussion of the Reactor's unique, high-efficiency heat exchanger system (in Appendix II of my Reactor review).  Note that the fins on the Windburner do not radiate straight out from the center; they proceed an an angle.  This is brilliant.  This forces exhaust gasses along a longer heat exchanger fin thereby effecting a greater heat transfer to the pot.  Note:  I have read that the particular configuration of the fins may cause air flow patterns that increase the time that the hot exhaust is in contact with the fins and bottom of pot.  I have no way of verifying this, therefore I can't comment any further.

Heat exchanger fins on the bottom of the new Windburner

Now, notice something else different about the Windburner.  Whereas Reactor pots have always fit over the burner, the Windburner pot necks down at the bottom and fits into the burner.

The heat exchanger assembly on a Windburner fits into the burner.

Note also the slots on the lower rim of the pot.  The pot now attaches firmly to dimples on the burner.  No longer is the pot held in place by gravity alone.  Note here that I'm holding the Windburner by the pot handle but that the burner is not falling off onto the ground.

The Windburner's pot affixes firmly to the burner.

The slots on the base of the Windburner accommodate the dimples seen on the inside rim of the burner in the below photo.

Dimples on the inside of the rim of the burner slip into slots on the base of the pot, locking the system together

There are only four dimples on the inside of the burner rim, but does one have to "hunt around" in order to match the dimples to the slots?  No, not at all.  The pot has a full dozen slots.  There's practically no way to miss the dimples.  Just insert the pot into the rim of the burner and rotate clockwise; the pot will lock into place.

Now, regarding the burner, it's quite a bit taller than the Reactor's burner.

The Windburner's burner

The burner column is protected by a perforated stainless steel windscreen.  At the base of the windscreen is a "collar" by which one should always grip the stove, particularly when the stove is hot.  One should avoid gripping the stove by the windscreen which could deform.

Inside the windscreen is a fairly conventional looking ported burner column.  Gone are the Venturi tubes that feed the Reactor's burner.  There's a lot of open space inside the Windburner's windscreen.

A look inside the windscreen of a Windburner

I note that the burner has brass threads which is consistent with a high end canister gas stove.  The valve control handle folds neatly back over the burner's connector.

The Windburner has high quality brass threads.  The valve control handle folds neatly out of the way.

The valve handle is quite long which might be handy if one were wearing mittens.  I suppose the long handle might be nice too if the pot boiled over and boiling water were running down the sides of the pot.  Of course you're careful, and that would never happen to you.  But for someone else, someone a bit clumsy, it might be really nice.  Just saying.

The burner head looks fairly similar to the Reactor's burner head.  I do note that the uber cool MSR logo embedded in the burner is not included on the Windburner.  Here's a photo of a Reactor burner in use:

A Reactor burner.  Note the MSR logo embedded in the burner.

Now, compare that to the Windburner's burner.  Alas, no logo.

The Windburner burner.  No logo.

Now, notice something else.  The Reactor's burner glows red evenly through out.  The Windburner's burner glowed red only in the center in the tests I've conducted so far.  I'm not quite sure what's causing this, but clearly the Windburner's burner is a new burner design.  I'm sure the Windburner's burner design owes much to the Reactor, but one look at the burner column, and you'll see that this is really a new burner.

The burner was no slacker though.  I got a boil on 500 ml of water in a little over 2:10, and it was a boil most vigorous.  Please note that I've only had the stove a few days and have not done an extensive battery of tests.  In other words, if your Windburner doesn't boil 500 ml in exactly 2:10, don't be surprised.

500 ml of water vigorously boiling on a Windburner

Now, here's the interesting part.  I wanted to see what kind of flame control the Windburner has.  One of the complaints about the Reactor is that it's all but impossible to get a Reactor to simmer.  So, from the above vigorous boil, when I turned the stove down, I got... a very low simmer!

Simmering on a Windburner

Now, I by no means have done an extensive battery of tests on the Windburner, but I was able to get it to simmer repeatedly.  I'm not quite prepared to go on record (yet) as stating that the Windburner is a good simmering stove, but my preliminary tests were highly encouraging.

Included with the Windburner is this little square of absorbent material.  This is to protect the bottom of your anodized pot.

A square of padding comes with the Windburner

Also included are some canister "legs" (a canister stand) which are very nicely designed:  They're very compact but work well.

The included canister stand of the Windburner, unfolded.

The legs fold up into a tidy little triangle.

The canister stand of the Windburner, folded.

On many stoves, a canister stand is a "nice to have", but isn't really necessary. The Windburner is a fairly tall set up.  I think the canister stand is a good idea.  The canister stand fit on every brand of canister I tried, most of which are of a standard size.  The one exception is Coleman brand 220g canisters which are about a millimeter wider than everyone else's.  The Windburner's canister stand did fit a Coleman brand canister, but it was a very tight fit.

UPDATE, 7 January 2015:  MSR has slightly changed the canister stand to beef up the joints since I wrote my review.  I'll try to get a hold of a new one and report more when I can.

Now, I said that the Windburner is a tall set up.  Just how tall is it?  With a 110g canister and the canister stand attached, I measure it at approximately 13"/ 33cm.

The Windburner is approx. 13"/33cm tall with a 110g canister and the canister stand attached.

With a 227g canister and the canister stand attached, I measure it at approximately 14"/ 35.6cm.

The Windburner is approx. 14"/35.6cm tall with a 227g canister and the canister stand attached.

With a 450g canister and the canister stand attached, I measure it at approximately 16"/ 40.6cm.

The Windburner is approx. 16"/40.6cm tall with a 450g canister and the canister stand attached.

OK, so it's a fairly tall set up, but is that a problem?  In my experience, no.  In the photo below, I'm conducting what I call a tip test.  I set the Windburner on a rock at a ridiculous angle, an angle you'd never actually use the stove at.  I then poured 500 ml of water into it.  It didn't tip.  Do note that I carefully positioned one of the three legs pointing straight downhill.  Not recommended for actual cooking!

The tip test.  It didn't (tip that is).

Packing Up
Now, as you might expect, everything fits together well.  First, the canister legs fit over the top of cap on the canister.  Note that not all caps are of the same size for all brands of canisters, but the leg should still pack well even if they don't fit tightly on some brands of canister.  That said, most canister brands are made by a single manufacturer in Korea and have the same exact cap as an MSR canister (except that the color of the cap may vary).

Update 4 Nov 2014:  I just watched MSR's video on the Windburner.  MSR's video shows the canister legs going in last, not first as I'm suggesting here.  In actual practice, either will work, although I think MSR's way is slightly easier.  Take your pick.  Note:  I frequently will not watch/read materials from a stove company until I've had a chance to assess the stove myself.  I want to avoid going in to the review process with pre-conceived notions.

The canister stand pops snugly on to the cap of a canister.

The the bottom of the canister fits nicely over the burner.

The components of a Windburner ready to go into the pot.

Put the little absorbent square in the bottom of the pot and feed everything into the pot in the follow order:  Canister stand, canister, with the burner last.  Then pop the lid on.  The fit is tight with a canister, but fit it does, and the lid is quite snug and holds everything in place well.  Note that only with a 110g  sized canister can all components be stored inside the pot.  Larger canisters will not fit in the pot.

The MSR Windburner, all packed up with a 110g canister inside.

The Windburner vs. The Jetboil.
Well, just judging by the name of the stove alone, it looks as though MSR is moving into direct competition with Jetboil.  Heretofore, MSR confined itself to a fairly high end niche with it's highly wind resistant Reactor.  The main target audience was serious alpine climbers and the like who needed a stove that would operate in high winds and melt snow fast – and had the means to pay for it.  The Reactor is not an inexpensive stove at $190.00 MSRP (1.0 L size).  With the introduction of the Windburner (MSRP $130.00), MSR has introduced a far more affordable stove that will appeal to a much wider audience.  If the promise of the ability to simmer pans out (I'm not done with my testing just yet), MSR may have a truly versatile stove on it's hands.   Note however, that MSR is still competing on the high end.  It will be hard for the Windburner at $130 to compete with the Jetboil Zip at $80.  Likewise the Jetboil Flash at $100 will be tough for the Windburner to compete against.  However, Jetboil's latest offering, the Mini-Mo at $130, will have to go head to head with the Windburner.  May the best stove win.

Note 1:  Jetboil seems to be discontinuing it's Sol stove, both the aluminum and titanium versions, therefore I have not included the Sol in the above discussion.  However at $120 (aluminum version) and $150 (titanium version), the Sol's prices would seem in line with the Windburner's.

Note 2:  The Jetboil Joule is an inverted canister stove intended for winter conditions.  It's a different class of stove and is not included in this discussion.

The Future of the Reactor
Well, if I can get Reactor technology for $130 (in the Windburner), why should I pay upwards of $190 for a Reactor?  Good question, but I wouldn't count the Reactor out just yet.

Companions? Or competitors?
The MSR Reactor, left, and the MSR Windburner, right.

I haven't completed my testing, so I'm speculating a bit here, but the Reactor appears to be the more powerful, more windproof stove.  Yes, you've got Reactor technology in the Windburner, but that doesn't make it a Reactor.  I imagine there's still a place for the Reactor, particularly for the serious alpine climber.  Note also that the Reactor has a variety of pot sizes available to it  (1.0L, 1.7L, and 2.5L) whereas the Windburner only comes in a one liter size.  The Windburner might kill the 1.0 L Reactor (maybe), but it may not hurt the larger sized Reactors.  MSR could make larger pots for the Windburner burner (as Jetboil has with their Sumo pot), but we will have to wait and see on that.  In the mean time, I hope to conduct some Reactor vs. Windburner tests to look at things like speed, efficiency, and windproofness.  I imagine the Reactor will win at speed and wind resistance, but that the Windburner will do nearly as well as a Reactor on efficiency, but of course I haven't yet done the testing.  Regardless of whether or not the Reactor is faster and more windproof, the Windburner will cut into Reactor sales.  MSR is taking a bit of a gamble here.  They're leaving the safe harbor Reactor niche market and moving out into the open seas of direct competition with Jetboil.  The Windburner has to sell well enough to make up for the loss of at least some Reactor sales as well as generate enough revenue to cover product development.  Good luck to MSR; competing against Jetboil in this space is no small task.

There's our first look at the new Windburner, a very impressive stove.  As always, I thank you for joining me,

HJ

Appendix – Component Weights

MSR Windburner Weights

Component	Grams	Ounces
Pot (bare)	147	5.19
Cozy & Handle	49	1.73
Bowl	32	1.13
Pack Cloth	1	0.04
Canister Legs	16	0.56
Lid	13	0.46
Burner	199	7.02
Total	457	16.12

Stated vs. Measured Weights

	Grams	Ounces
Measured	457	16.12
Stated	432	15.24
Difference	25	0.88

Note:  "Stated" weights are the weights listed on the MSR website.  "Measured" weights are those weights I measured with my gram scale at home.  All measurements were made in grams.  Weights in ounces are a calculated figure.  Some rounding error may occur.  In the case of any apparent discrepancy, use the weight in grams.  

Commentary on weights:  You'll notice that the actual weight of the unit I received is a bit heavier than the weight stated on MSR's website.  This is probably just due to normal variations in the manufacturing process.  If you read my review of the 1.0 L Reactor, you'll see that the weight difference went the other way.  The 1.0 Reactor that I received was 25 g lighter than the stated weight.  Hopefully, if one were to weigh several dozen Windburners, the average would be very close to the stated weight.  Individual units are going to vary a bit as to weight; that's just how it is.

UPDATE, 7 January 2015:  I've received a note from MSR stating that production units are coming in heavier than the prototype units that the weights were calculated from.  MSR gave me a range.  Basically the unit I received is about in the middle of that range.  A weight just over 16 ounces should be about the weight of a unit that you would receive should you purchase one.  I might add that MSR was a bit chagrined about the miscalculation of the weights since they try to be transparent about such things.  I don't yet have an exact number for the revised stated weight, but it should be about 460 grams/16.2 ounces.

Disclosures
The item reviewed here was provided to me at no charge for the purposes of this review.  I am under no obligation to review this or any other item.  I am not compensated for my reviews in any fashion other than in some cases I am permitted to keep the item reviewed.  Given that I have well over a 100 backpacking stoves, a free stove frankly isn't going to buy anyone a good review.  Stove companies must measure up if they want a decent review here.  I am an amatuer stove blogger; I make my living elsewhere, in the IT field.  I fit blogging in as time permits.  Inasmuch as my income is derived elsewhere, monetary issues do not influence the reviews on this blog.  Yes, I do have advertisements on the blog.  I typically derive about $1.00 USD per day from the advertisements (last I checked).  This is a mere pittance and does not influence my reviews in the slightest.  Revenue from the advertisements goes toward hosting fees, stove fuel, and the like.  The blog is self supporting in that sense, and my wife is quite happy that I'm not using the family's income to run the blog, particularly given how tough the economy is these days.

The Kovea Supalite (KB-0707) Gas Stove

People often ask me what stove(s) I like or recommend.  When it comes to the upright canister gas stove category (where the burner screws directly onto the canister), I like the Kovea Supalite.

The Kovea Supalite canister gas stove, screwed into a canister.

Let's go through some of the features of the stove.

Compactness
First it's a nicely compact stove.  Here's the stove in the palm of my hand.

The Kovea Supalite in my hand

Just how compact is it?  Well, let's compare it to what may be the most well known stove of this class in the US, the MSR Pocket Rocket.  I'm choosing the Pocket Rocket simply because the stove is so well known.

Kovea Supalite (left); MSR Pocket Rocket (right)

Notice that the MSR Pocket Rocket is quite a bit taller than the Kovea Supalite.  Notice also that the valve handle on the Pocket Rocket folds up but still sticks out a bit.  The Supalite's valve handle folds up around the base.

The Supalite's valve handle folds back around the stove's base.

The Supalite also lies far flatter than the Pocket Rocket.  Note in the photo below how the Pocket Rocket juts up quite a bit higher than the Supalite.

The Supalite packs flatter than the Pocket Rocket.

Now, why might compactness matter?  Well, a lot of people like to pack their stove inside their pot or mug.  The trend these days is to go fairly fast and light.  A lot of people are going with fairly small pots.  A big stove just isn't going to fit in a small pot.  To illustrate this, I grabbed a 250 ml/8 oz titanium Sierra Cup and our two stoves.  Notice that the Pocket Rocket can't fit in the cup, no matter how it is oriented.

A Pocket Rocket cannot be made to fit in a 250 ml/8 oz Sierra Cup.

By contrast, not only does the Supalite fit, it lies flat in the bottom of the cup.  In my book, that's compact.

The Kovea Supalite lies flat in the bottom of a 250 ml/8 oz Sierra Cup.

Pot Stability
"That's all well and fine," you may be thinking, "but a smaller stove is going to have smaller pot supports, my pot's not going to be stable, and my dinner is going to wind up on the ground."  Not so!

Let's compare the pot supports of the two.  If the two stoves are held together with the pot supports touching one another, we see that the span of the pot supports is essentially the same.  The Supalite's pot supports might be just ever so slightly larger in their span, but not to a degree that is significant.

The pot supports of a Pocket Rocket and a Supalite, juxtaposed.

In other words, even though the Supalite is far more compact, it's pot supports are just as wide.  Not only that, but in actual use, I found that the design of the Supalite's supports actually gave it better pot stability compared to the Pocket Rocket.  Note:   The ends of the Supalite's pot supports fold outward.  When screwing on a canister, the pot supports can flip back closed, which is a bit of a nuisance.  I found it easiest to screw on the canister first and then to fully deploy the pot supports.

Here's a photo of the Supalite in use with a 2.1 liter pot.  Now, a 2.1 liter pot is a fairly large pot, but I found no issues with stability.

A Kovea Supalite in use with a 2.1 liter pot.  No stability issues.

In fact, it was so stable I let my five year old daughter help me cook with this set up.  Now, that's stable!

A five year old child cooking with a 2.1 liter pot on a Kovea Supalite stove.

Cooking Ability
Speaking of cooking, how well does the Supalite do?  Well, in order to answer that question, let's look at the flame pattern.  Notice in the photo below that the Supalite's flame is directed outward.  If you're familiar at all with the Pocket Rocket, you know that it's flame is directed upward.

The flame on a Kovea Supalite stove radiates out away from the burner head.

Why might the orientation of the flame matter?  Well, a flame that points outward is more dispersed which minimizes hot spots and lends itself to better cooking.  A flame that points upwards frequently causes hot spots where food tends to burn onto the pot.  In my use of the Supalite, I found that I had very good flame control and that the stove simmered well without hot spots -- and no burnt food.

Now, does the more dispersed flame reduce the power of the stove?  In my testing, I found no indication of a loss of power.  I was able to produce a very vigorous rolling boil.

A vigorous boil from a Kovea Supalite.

Boil Time
Now, some people are going to ask, "well, how long did it take to boil?"  Those who have followed Adventures in Stoving for any length of time know that I don't really think that boil times are a good measure by which to judge a stove.  For one, how much gas are you burning through if you're doing speed boils?  If you've got a "gas guzzler" of a stove, is that what you really want?  Remember, you have to carry all your fuel and you want the fuel to last for an entire trip.  I encourage people to look for stoves that are efficient not hyper fast.  As long as the boil is with in a reasonable time period, I'm satisfied.  I mean, really.  I've hiked multiple hours to get to camp and I'm going to obsess over which stove is 30 seconds faster to boil?  I'm just not.  I cannot for the life of my understand why so much marketing spin is directed towards which stove boils the fastest -- as if that really mattered.

So, with respect to the Supalite (as well as most any other stove), I'm not going to quote boil times. If there's a problem, I'll mention it.  In my testing with the Supalite, there were no such problems.  It was clear that the Supalite was no slouch in terms of putting out the heat.  Boiling occurred in a reasonable time and the stove had reasonable power.

The Supalite certainly did an excellent job on my noodles, and that to me is far more important than any boil time.

Lunch is served!

Kovea, the Company
Regarding Kovea, I've half jokingly referred to Kovea as the "best known stove company that you've never heard of."  Kovea has traditionally made stoves for other companies.  If you've used other upright canister stoves from companies like Markhill, Vaude, MSR, and Snow Peak, there's a good chance that the stove was actually made by Kovea and then sold under another brand name.

The Kovea Supalite vs. The Snow Peak LiteMax
If you look closely at the Kovea Supalite, you can't help but see that it's very nearly the same stove as the Snow Peak LiteMax.  Snow Peak is a Japanese company, but look closely at the box, and you'll see that the LiteMax is made in Korea.  Yes, both stoves are made by Kovea.  They're very nearly the same stove, but there are a few minor cosmetic differences.   In the case of the Supalite vs. the LiteMax (essentially the same stove), the one that says "Kovea" on the side is typically $10 cheaper than the one that says "Snow Peak".  The same stove for $10 less?  Works for me.   Do note that the Snow Peak LiteMax has more of the base machined off and weighs 54 g.  If 6 g in weight savings is worth $10 to you, then you might want to go with the version stamped "Snow Peak."

The Supalite's Weight
There are a couple of different variants out there of the Supalite.  The version I have weighs 56 g/1.98 oz.  The version currently sold in the US weighs 60 g/2.12 oz.  The stove I have has some of the base machined off.  That's the only difference.  It appears that the 56 g version is the "domestic" version for sale within Korea.  The 60 g version is the "export grade" version for export to the US.  If you get a Supalite from an authorized retailer in the US, you should get the 60 g version.  If you get a 56 g version, say through eBay, you're getting a "bootleg" copy that someone is selling directly from Korea on the sly.  You should be aware if you get a "bootleg" copy, you lose any warranty from Kovea.  If you want the Kovea warranty, you need to buy the 60g version through authorized channels.  Note that the version I have is the 56 g version.  I got mine before Kovea started officially selling their stoves in the US.

Other Names/Other Stoves
The Supalite is sometimes advertised as the "Camp 56", typically on eBay.  The Camp 56 and the Supalite are one and the same stove (KB-0707).  The Camp 56 is the "bootleg" version not intended for the US market and carries no warranty from Kovea.

Kovea also makes the "Titanium" stove (KB-0101) which looks very much like the Supalite except that it has a piezoelectric ignition.  The Titanium is actually a different stove (there's more to it than just the addition of a piezoelectric ignition).  I haven't reviewed the Titanium stove, but piezoelectric ignition does not have a good reputation for reliability.  Personally, I'd probably stick with the "plain" (no piezo) Supalite.

Availability
So far, I've only seen the Supalite available on Amazon (authorized version) and eBay (typically unauthorized).  However, if you have read my review of the Kovea Spider there are several Kovea retailers listed (toward the bottom of the review).  You could contact those retailers and see if you can get the Supalite through them.

Summary
The Supalite (KB-0707) upright canister gas stove from Kovea:

What's Good about it

• Compact
• Light
• Excellent pot stability
• The flames from the burner head angle outward which helps prevent "hot spotting"
• Well made, well designed
• Very reasonably priced for an ultralight, titanium stove (note that the base and threads are aluminum)

What's bad about it

• The pot supports can flip back closed while screwing the burner on to a canister (this is more of a nuisance than a true problem and can be avoided by screwing on the stove first and then deploying the pot supports).

The Supalite (KB-0707) upright canister gas stove from Kovea:  Highly recommended.

As always, I thank you for joining me.

HJ

Disclosures
The Kovea Supalite was provided to me at no charge for the purposes of this review.  I am under no obligation to review this or any other stove.  I am not compensated for my reviews in any fashion other than in some cases I am permitted to keep the item reviewed.  Given that I have well over a 100 backpacking stoves, a free stove frankly isn't going to buy anyone a good review.  Stove companies must measure up if they want a decent review here.  I am an amatuer stove blogger; I make my living elsewhere, in the IT field.  I fit blogging in as time permits.  Inasmuch as my income is derived elsewhere, monetary issues do not influence the reviews on this blog.  Yes, I do have advertisements on the blog.  I typically derive about $1.00 USD per day from the advertisements (last I checked).  This is a mere pittance and does not influence my reviews in the slightest.  Revenue from the advertisements goes toward hosting fees, stove fuel, and the like.  The blog is self supporting in that sense, and my wife is quite happy that I'm not using the family's income to run the blog, particularly given how tough the economy is these days.

Which is Lighter – Alcohol or Gas?

The "prevailing wisdom" seems to be that canister gas is lighter than alcohol on longer backpacking trips.  On the surface, this would seem to make sense.  From a chemistry standpoint you have to carry roughly twice as much alcohol (assume 50/50 methanol/ethanol) as gas to produce the same amount of heat.  Even though alcohol containers are lighter than gas canisters, you have to carry so much more fuel, at some point the greater amount of fuel you carry for an alcohol set up will exceed the weight of an equivalent canister gas set up.  Or so the thinking goes.  But is it true?

Time to head into the backcountry.  Uh, hope your heavy pack doesn't ruin your trip.  But what's really lighter?

So, which is actually lighter – alcohol or canister gas?  Well, let's "do the math" and see what we come up with. I'll do three comparisons of gas stoves against alcohol as listed below.

1. Conventional canister stove vs. alcohol
2. Jetboil canister stove, typical use, vs. alcohol
3. Jetboil canister stove,  "gram weenie" (minimalist) use, vs. alcohol

I'll cover conventional canister stoves vs. alcohol in this post.  I'll cover high efficiency stoves (i.e. a Jetboil) in future posts.

Conventional Canister Stove vs. Alcohol
OK, so what do I mean by "conventional" canister stove?  I'm talking about just a regular upright canister gas stove and a plain pot, the kind that does not have a heat exchanger.  In other words, just an ordinary gas stove with a plain pot.  Examples would include an MSR Pocket Rocket and a Snow Peak Gigapower.  Let me put up the numbers first, and then I'll walk you through them.  For the sake of brevity, I'm going to limit my projections to 14 days.  I'm assuming that most people don't do trips longer than two weeks without re-supplying.  I have numbers if you're interested that go out to three weeks. I'll discuss how to request those numbers later on in this post.

An ultralight conventional canister gas stove

Here are the numbers:

ALCOHOL
Number of days on trail	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
ml of alcohol per day	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
Total ml of alcohol	50	100	150	200	250	300	350	400	450	500	550	600	650	700
Specific gravity	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8
Total grams of alcohol	40	80	120	160	200	240	280	320	360	400	440	480	520	560
Fuel bottle weight (grams)	18	18	32	32	32	45	45	45	45	45	45	63	63	63
Stove system weight	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60
Total grams (bottle + fuel + stove)	118	158	212	252	292	345	385	425	465	505	545	603	643	683
Weight carried end of trip (grams)	78	78	92	92	92	105	105	105	105	105	105	123	123	123
CANISTER GAS
Number of days on trail	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
Grams of gas per day	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
Total grams of gas needed	20	40	60	80	100	120	140	160	180	200	220	240	260	280
Actual grams of gas carried	110	110	110	110	110	220	220	220	220	220	220	330	330	330
Canister weight (grams)	100	100	100	100	100	140	140	140	140	140	140	240	240	240
Stove system weight	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60
Total grams (can + fuel + stove)	270	270	270	270	270	420	420	420	420	420	420	630	630	630
Weight carried end of trip (grams)	250	230	210	190	170	300	280	260	240	220	200	390	370	350
Number of days on trail	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
Start of Trip Difference (grams)	152	112	58	18	-22	75	35	-5	-45	-85	-125	27	-13	-53
Start of Trip Difference (ounces)	5.4	4.0	2.0	0.6	-0.8	2.6	1.2	-0.2	-1.6	-3.0	-4.4	1.0	-0.5	-1.9
End of Trip Difference (grams)	172	152	118	98	78	195	175	155	135	115	95	267	247	227
End of Trip Difference (ounces)	6.1	5.4	4.2	3.5	2.8	6.9	6.2	5.5	4.8	4.1	3.4	9.4	8.7	8.0
Average Difference (grams)	162	132	88	58	28	135	105	75	45	15	-15	147	117	87
Average Difference (ounces)	5.7	4.7	3.1	2.0	1.0	4.8	3.7	2.6	1.6	0.5	-0.5	5.2	4.1	3.1

OK, so let's talk about the numbers.  These numbers are for a solo stove user.  Use of a single stove by multiple persons would require an adjustment to the above numbers.

The first line for each type of stove is the length of the trip.  The trip is assumed to be "unsupported".  In other words, you aren't going to pick up supplies anywhere along the way during the trip.

"Unsupported" trips occur in areas where resupply is infeasible.  All supplies must be packed in.

Now, we need to know the total weight for each set up.  The total weight is the sum of the weight of the fuel + the weight of the stove set up + the weight of the fuel container.  Assume for these purposes that we use identical pots.

In the Alcohol section, I go through some gyrations to calculate the weight of how much fuel I think I'll need.  We can argue exactly what is the correct value for the specific gravity of SLX denatured alcohol (which is what I've been using lately), but the important point is that the weight of alcohol is double that of canister gas.

Now, look at the two stove set ups.  I'm allotting 60g each for both alcohol and canister gas.  I include the weight of a full windscreen with the alcohol stove set up.  I consider a windscreen essential to the efficient burning of alcohol.   Now, can you find a canister stove that is lighter than 60g?  Certainly.  And you can also find an alcohol set up that is lighter than 60g.  For these purposes, let's assume that the two stove set ups weigh the same.

The container weight will vary with the amount of fuel that we use.  More fuel will require a larger container or multiple smaller containers.  In this comparison, I'm going to assume that people are going to take full canisters at the start of the trip, a fairly standard practice.  In the "gram weenie" (minimalist) comparison, I'll use partial canisters to see what kind of weight savings I can obtain.  See Appendix I for a list of the specific sizes and weights of the containers used.

At this point we've got the total weight of each set up for each length of trip, from 1 to 14 days.  But that weight is the weight you show up with at the trailhead at the start of the trip.  Recall that during the trip, you'll be burning the fuel.  The weight you show up at the trailhead will not be carried throughout the trip.  So, below the "total grams" line I show the weight at the end of the trip after you've burned the fuel.

Next, I show the difference in weight between alcohol and gas at the start of a trip.  Negative numbers indicate the weight savings if gas is used.  Positive numbers indicate the weight savings if alcohol is used.  Notice that for trips up to 4 days in duration, alcohol is lighter but that on the 5th day, gas is lighter.  This seems to fit the "prevailing wisdom" that gas is lighter for longer trips.  But now notice that on a 6 day trip, alcohol reverts to being lighter.  What happened?  Well, on a six day trip, we use 120g of fuel.  A small canister only holds 110g of fuel.  We switched to a 220g canister, and now we're carrying more weight in both fuel and container.  As the duration of a trip lengthens, we again see weight savings for 8 through 11 day trips.  A 12 day trip shows up with alcohol being lighter again because we had to switch to a 220g canister and a 110g in order to have enough gas.  And so on.

But these are starting weight differences.  The next set of rows shows ending weight differences.  Now here's something a bit startling:  alcohol set ups are always lighter by the end of the trip.  Why?  Well, container weight.  Take a look at Appendix I.  With a 110g size gas canister, for example, the canister weighs almost as much as the fuel.  That steel canister is still with you at the end of the trip. With alcohol, the weight is almost all fuel.

Lastly, there is one final set of rows in my comparison table:  Average difference.  Here, I'm averaging the starting and ending difference in weight between alcohol and canister gas.  Notice here that in only one instance, at eleven days (highlighted in green), is canister gas lighter on average than alcohol.

Preparing Ramen with mixed vegetables and turkey jerky on an alcohol set up.

Commentary
Now, ending light may not always be your chief goal.  When is you pack heaviest?  At the start of a trip, when you've got all your food.  So, having a lighter stove set up at the start of the trip is actually a good thing, and therefore a gas set up might be in order.  However, that said, it's only on longer trips, 10 and 11 days long, where anything even close to real weight savings occur, about 1/4 of a pound.  The start of trip weight savings when using a gas stove on longer trips are fairly modest, at least with conventional stoves.  I'll discuss results with a high efficiency stove (i.e. a Jetboil) in two future posts.

The biggest drawback to gas stoves is those heavy steel canisters.  The best you can do in terms of a fuel to container weight ratio is about 2:1.  With alcohol you can get a ratio as good as 10:1.  An important goal in trip planning when using a gas stove is to minimize canister weight.

Minimizing canister weight
First, never carry two smaller canisters when a single larger one will do.  Your fuel to canister weight ratio is always better with a larger canister.  In cases where you need more than 220g but less than 331g of fuel, you'd actually do better weight wise with a 450g size canister that has had some fuel burned off than you would carrying two canisters (i.e. a 110g size and a 220g size).  If you're planning a trip where you just barely have to move up to the next larger sized canister, you might want to plan a stoveless meal or two or bring a more efficient stove just so you don't have to bump up to that next larger canister.  In short, always strive to bring only one canister, the smallest, lightest one that has enough capacity for your trip.  Try not to have to bring two canisters or to have to move up to the next larger size.

In the interests of saving weight, always carry the smallest sized canister you reasonably can.

HJ, your numbers stink!
Don't like my numbers?  No worries.  You can have my spreadsheets and plug in your own numbers.  Write me at Hikin dot Jim using the domain Gmail dot com and ask for a copy.  Note that there is no "g" in "Hikin".  Hopefully, I won't get inundated here.  I have this in Excel 2010 format.  If you need an earlier format, please let me know, and I'll do my best.

Conclusion
So, in conclusion, with a conventional upright gas stove, gas can be lighter at the start of a trip, but alcohol is always lighter by the end of a backpacking trip.  In terms of the average difference in weight throughout the trip, alcohol is almost always lighter.  If you're looking to save weight, alcohol stoves are a pretty good bet.

I hope all these calculations are of some help to those looking to lighten up,

Thank you for joining me,

HJ


Appendix I – Weights
Empty canister weights.  I weighed several different brands of canisters on my gram scale.  There is some variability among brands in both content and canister weight, but I'm going to use the below weights which I think are representative.  I use the word "ratio" below but only list one number for brevity's sake.  Mentally, just include ":1" after each number shown below.
1.  A 110g size canister weighs 100g when empty.  Fuel to container weight ratio = 1.1
2.  A 220g size canister weighs 140g when empty.  Fuel to container weight ratio = 1.6
3.  A 450g size canister weighs 210g when empty.  Fuel to container weight ratio = 2.1

Empty alcohol fuel bottle weights.  I weighed some of the alcohol bottles I have lying around.  There may be lighter versions available, but let's use the below numbers in our calculations.  I use the word "ratio" below but only list one number for brevity's sake.  Mentally, just include ":1" after each number shown below.
1.  A 125ml fuel bottle weighs 18g when empty.  Fuel to container weight ratio = 6.3
2.  A 250ml fuel bottle weighs 32g when empty.  Fuel to container weight ratio = 7.0
3.  A 500ml fuel bottle weighs 45g when empty.  Fuel to container weight ratio = 10.0


Appendix II – Assumptions

• The first assumption is of course that alcohol stoves will work for your style of stove use.  If you're doing gourmet cooking or cooking for a group of three or more, then an alcohol stove may not work for you.
• Gas to alcohol fuel weight ratio is 2:1.  In other words, you need to burn twice the alcohol by weight to get the same amount of heat as you would from gas.  Yes, I'm assuming 20g/day for gas and 50ml/day for alcohol, but the amounts are not so much what is important; it is the ratio that is critical.
• 6 cups (approx 1.5L) of water boiled per day.
• Water temperature approx. 10C.
• Very little simmering.
• Efficient alcohol set up (I used a Caldera Cone from Trail Designs to develop my numbers).
• Gas stove is used efficiently (turn it down, use a lid, use a wide enough pot, etc.)
• Stoves are reasonably shielded from wind.
• Regular canister stove (not a Jetboil, a Reactor, or similar).
• Plain pot (no heat exchanger).
• Air pressure approx 900 mBar.
• The same pot is used for both alcohol and canister gas.
• Gas and alcohol stove set ups are of equal weight.
• A windscreen is included in the weight of an alcohol stove set up.
• No resupply (at least of fuel) occurs during the trip.

A windscreen is essentially mandatory on alcohol set ups like this Bobcat set up from Flat Cat Gear.

How Much Canister Gas Do I Need?

Sometimes I see people bringing a lot more gas for their canister stove than they really need.  Now, it never hurts to be prepared, but really? A 450g canister for a simple weekend trip?  That's potentially a lot of extra weight to pack up a mountain.  Of course we don't want to run out of gas, but let's see if we can't do a little bit better in terms of coming up with an estimate of the gas we might need.

The three standard threaded backpacking canister sizes:
(L to R) 450g, 220g, and 110g.  Note:  Some brands vary as to exact amount of gas.

Now, before I give you my estimates, let me say that my estimates are based on my experience and my style of stove use.  You are your own best estimator.  If you're somewhat new to backpacking, then I'd say err on the side of caution and assume that you'll be doing "complex" cooking and select fuel based on that column from the table below.

What about White Gas?
What's that you say?  You don't use canister gas; you use white gas?  Ah.  No worries.  Check out How Much White Gas Do I Need?

Making Your Own Estimates
As for your own estimate based on your cooking style/stove use style, first you need to get a gram scale. Then weigh your gas canister before your trip.  On every trip, keep track of how many meals you cooked and what type of cooking was involved.  After your trip, weigh the canister again.  The difference between the starting weight and the ending weight is the amount of gas you used.  If you've kept track of how much and what type of cooking you've done, you should be able to start estimating your gas usage after a few trips.

Estimates in the Field
You can also make a rough estimate of how much fuel you're using while you're out on a trip.  See my article in Seattle Backpacker's Magazine, How Much Gas Do I Have Left?

Using Less Fuel 
Whatever you do with a stove, keep efficiency in mind.  There are basic things you can do to use less fuel while you're cooking.  I commend to you my earlier blog post, Canister Gas Stoves -- Recommendations and Efficiency.

My Estimates 
OK, now here are my estimates.  Note that when I boil water, the water is normally around 40F/5C to 50F/10C in temperature.  Significantly warmer or colder water may cause you to use more or less gas.  If you're melting snow, you should roughly double the below estimates.

		For a solo trip
	Jetboil	Conventional Canister Gas Stove (simple cooking)	Conventional Canister Gas Stove (more complex cooking)
Grams per day	15	20	30
		For two
Grams per day	23	30	45

Now, notice two things:
1.  For a simple weekend trip, for one person, there's no need to ever bring a 450g canister.  A 110g canister should do nicely unless you're doing a lot of extra heating for drinks, dish water, bath water, etc.   A reasonably conservative person shouldn't need more than one small canister of gas for a weekend.
2.  I do not double my estimates if a second person comes.  It's usually more efficient to boil more water at a time.  In other words, if you're going to boil a liter of water, do it all at once.  Don't boil 500 ml, empty the pot, and then boil the second 500 ml.  I'm assuming here that you brought a pot large enough for two people.  If not, then you may need to allow for higher gas usage.

Remember that my estimates are just that, estimates.  Always check that your experience is similar to mine before relying too heavily on my estimates.  Particularly in very cold or very windy conditions, gas usage may increase significantly.

I hope you find this post helpful,

HJ

Notes and Assumptions
1.  The figures above assume about 6 cups (approx. 1.5L) boiled per day for simple cooking.
2.  Water temperature is assumed to be around 40F/5C to 50F/10C.
3.  The figures in the table above do not include snow melting.
4.  The figures above assume you know how to operate a gas stove reasonably efficiently (turn it down!  Running on high wastes gas.) and that you've taken measures to shield the stove from wind.
5.  The figures above also assume that you have a pot that is wide enough to catch the flame.  Users of tall, skinny pots with a conventional gas stove will generally use more gas.
6.  Air pressure is assumed to be approx. 900 mBar, the air pressure normally found at about 3000'/900m in elevation.  Stove use at lower elevations may require more gas.  Stove use at higher elevations may require less gas.

Drought, Fire, and Stoves (How NOT to end up on the 11:00 News)

I wrote an article for Gossamer Gear on fire safety and backpacking stoves a couple of weeks ago. In light of the extreme fire weather we're having right now and the current fires now burning down in San Diego, I thought I'd post a link (below) here on my blog.

Fire currently (May 2014) burning in San Diego

Drought, Fire, and Stoves (How NOT to end up on the 11:00 News)

Stay safe out there,

HJ