Investigations into and adventures with backpacking stoves including solid fuel (e.g. ESBIT), alcohol, gas, "white" gas (Coleman type fuel), wood, and kerosene.
For those of you who are die-hard Pocket Rocket fans screaming "nooooo!" at your screen right now: Relax. There's a lot to like here, and you're giving up very little.
Note: Gone as well is the Micro Rocket.
Compactness
The obvious gain here is in compactness. For example, no matter how you turn it, the original Pocket Rocket just isn't going to fit into a 550 ml mug shaped pot, the kind that a 110 g canister of gas nests in. You can't lay it flat, you can't put it in diagonally, and you can't stand it up straight.
The original Pocket Rocket just won't fit in a little 550 ml mug shaped pot.
On the other hand, the new Pocket Rocket 2 lays flat, no problem – a dramatic difference.
The new Pocket Rocket 2 fits into a 550 ml mug type pot with room to spare.
Weight
There's also a fairly significant weight reduction over the original Pocket Rocket. The new Pocket Rocket 2 weighs in at 73 g (2.6 oz) vs. 87 g (3.1 oz) for the original.
The Pocket Rocket 2 weighs in at 73 g (2.6 oz).
Improved Pot Stability
Now, some of you are no doubt saying to yourselves, "um, gosh, but the Pocket Rocket 2 looks a whole lot like the Micro Rocket." Well, if you were thinking that, you'd be right, BUT there's just a bit more to it than that.
The Micro Rocket, left, and the new Pocket Rocket 2, right.
With the Pocket Rocket 2 come much improved pot supports. The complaint with the Micro Rocket? It was a bit "iffy" in terms of pot stability with small pots.
For example, if one were to use something small like, say, a Sierra cup, you were balanced on little more than a prayer.
The pot supports on a Micro Rocket are just barely there with smaller diameter pots.
On the other hand, with the new Pocket Rocket 2, you've got quite a bit of "contact length" with the pot supports. If you bump the stove or the pot otherwise shifts, you've still got a section of the pot supports in contact with your vessel, and nothing falls off.
The greatly improved pot supports of the Pocket Rocket 2 offer a lot more support for small diameter pots, cups, or mugs.
What's that? You use something a bit bigger than a Sierra cup? OK, great, but even if you use something bigger, the new pot supports are still better. The new pot supports are longer and have more teeth. If your pot shifts or gets jostled, there's less chance that your pot is going to fall. A dinner saved is a dinner eaten!
The new Pocket Rocket 2, upper left. The Micro Rocket, lower right.
More teeth (and longer) = better grip.
These improvements in pot stability come at no cost in terms of extra weight; the Pocket Rocket 2 weighs the same as the Micro Rocket.
Price
The original Pocket Rocket had an MSRP of $40. The Micro Rocket had an MSRP of $60. The new Pocket Rocket 2 has an MSRP of $45.
I think this is good news. One receives all the benefits of the improved features and reduced weight of the Pocket Rocket 2 at only a nominal price increase over the original. MSR is basically merging the two product lines (Pocket Rocket and Micro Rocket) into one and passing on the cost savings to you, the end user.
Generations.
The Micro Rocket, left. The new Pocket Rocket 2, center. The original Pocket Rocket, right.
Concluding Remarks
I think this new stove is a win for someone like you or like I – a back country stove user. It looks like MSR just didn't find the two pronged approach of having two very similar stoves (the Pocket Rocket and the Micro Rocket) advantageous. So, they've decided to cut costs – while at the same time improving the stove overall. In so cutting, they're able to offer a better stove, the Pocket Rocket 2, at a much cheaper price. Whereas one formerly had to pay a premium to get the compactness and lightness of the Micro Rocket, now one gets the improved features and reduced weight at a very much reduced cost.
There is additional information in the appendices, below, about flame control, height, and other changes.
For availability and technical data, see Appendix I.
For flame control (simmering capability), see Appendix II. Nice flame shots here. :)
For other changes (case and ignition), see Appendix III
For a height comparison, see Appendix IV
For disclosures, see Appendix V.
Lastly, is the new Pocket Rocket 2 revolutionary? Well, it's a heck of a lot better than the original Pocket Rocket, but... there's not a huge difference over the Micro Rocket (although there are the improved pot supports). Still, it's a good solid stove at a price that is in line with comparable stoves – and at a price well below what one formerly had to pay for this level of features.
So, the Pocket Rocket is dead, but long live the Pocket Rocket 2!
Summary The MSR Pocket Rocket 2 What's good about it.
Good price point
Nice compactness
Robust, simple, and solid
Good flame control – see Appendix II, below.
Reduced weight as compared to the original
What's not so good about it.
The tops of the pot supports aren't completely level when fully deployed. The supports all slope downward into the center toward the burner. Better grip would be achieved were the tops of the pot supports all level (i.e. in the same plane) similar to how the Soto Amicus is configured.
The open burner is vulnerable to wind.
A further weight reduction would have been most welcome at this juncture.
The MSR Pocket Rocket 2: Highly recommended.
I thank you for joining me,
HJ
Appendix I – Manufacturer and Technical Data
Date Available: January, 2017 – see MSR Pocket Rocket Review Supplement for any updates
Manufacturer: Mountain Safety Research (MSR), a subsidiary of Cascade Designs.
Manufacturer's Website: http://www.cascadedesigns.com/MSR
MSRP: $45
Weight (measured): 73 g/2.6 oz
Materials: Primarily steel and aluminum
Packed dimensions: 1 11/16" x 1 11/16" x 3" (43 mm x 43 mm x 76 mm).
Unpacked dimensions: 4 3/4" x 4 3/4" x 3 9/16" (121 mm x 121 mm x 90 mm)
Size/Model tested: Pocket Rocket 2.
Colors available: Silver with a red valve block.
Requirements: A standard threaded canister of gas, sold separately. (Well, that and a pot of course)
Warranty Information: Contact Cascade Designs through their website (see above).
Appendix II – Flame Control
Flame control on the new Pocket Rocket 2 is good. The flame ranges from a very robust full power flame.
The Pocket Rocket 2 – full power.
To a very nice moderate flame.
The Pocket Rocket 2 – medium flame.
To a nice low, simmering type flame.
The Pocket Rocket 2 – low flame.
With small pots, of course you want to turn the flame down. High flame on a small pot is going to result in flames spilling up the sides of the pot – and going to waste.
Big flames + small pot = big waste
The only efficient flame – especially with small pots – is a smaller one. Never exceed the diameter of your pot.
A flame, properly adjusted, never exceeds the diameter of the pot.
Notice the contrast in flame sizes between the above two photos. Yes, you'll boil faster with a larger flame. You'll also burn through a lot more gas. Appendix III – Other Changes
There are a few changes as the original Pocket Rocket and the Micro Rocket go the way of the Dodo (i.e. extinct).
There's a new, much easier to use case for the Pocket Rocket 2. The original Pocket Case wasn't bad, but it was a bit bulky, and sometimes it would warp a bit making it hard to get the stove in and then close the case.
The original Pocket Rocket's case, left, the Micro Rocket's case, center, and the new Pocket Rocket 2's case, right.
The new Pocket Rocket 2 case opens easily like a treasure chest, and it's a lot easier to get the stove in and out.
The Pocket Rocket 2 in it's completely re-designed (and much improved) case.
Gone also is the Micro Rocket's little hand held piezoelectric ignition. I think there is little lost here. If you're going to carry a separate ignition, you might as well just carry a regular butane lighter. A regular lighter will be a lot more versatile in that it can also light paper, wood, etc. whereas a piezoelectric ignition only lights your stove. However, if you like the hand held piezoelectric ignition, you can still get either MSR's (presuming they're still going to carry it) or Kovea's which is identical to the MSR except for the color and the logo. There's room in the case if you decide you want to carry one.
The new Pocket Rocket 2 doesn't come with a hand held piezo ignition, but there's room in the case if you want to carry one.
The ignition in the above photo is from Kovea but is identical to the one sold by MSR except for the color and logo.
Appendix IV – Height
The height of the new Pocket Rocket 2, when fully deployed, remains consistent with the original Pocket Rocket (as well as the Micro Rocket).
The original Pocket Rocket, left, the Micro Rocket, center, and the new Pocket Rocket 2, right – all about the same height.
Appendix V – Disclosures
The stove featured in this review was provided to me at no charge by MSR. I have no financial relationship with MSR. I do not receive any compensation from MSR for this or any other review except that I typically get to keep the stove. I have pretty much every MSR stove known to man including many stoves that no longer exist (Firefly, Rapid Fire, "G" stove, Simmerlite, non-shaker Jet Whisperlite, etc.), so one more stove isn't a particularly big deal to me and certainly did not influence the way this review was written. I go out of my way to be thorough and objective in my reviews.
Also, I don't make money through this blog, not really. Sure, I have ads, and on a good day, I make about $2 USD. On a typical day, I make more like $1. Let's call it $35/month. That covers hosting fees and fuel, but precious little else, and certainly doesn't compensate me for my time. This is just my odd little hobby, and that's about all it is. There are those who have suggested that this blog is a plot to achieve world stove domination. Nothing could be further from the truth – although it is odd that those making such suggestions have all met with a series of freak white gas stove priming accidents...
Here's an example of how I calculate the amount of fuel needed for a given trip. You should be able to do something along these lines and come up with a number that will work for you.
Planning for a trip in the back country? Sounds fantastic.
Um, how much fuel are you going to need for that?
First, I write down when and how much I'm going to boil throughout each day. For example, look at the chart below. I typically boil two cups (about 500 ml) of water per meal for breakfast and supper. Maybe I'll boil a little less for breakfast. I typically have a cold lunch. I also like to have a cup of coffee or tea in the morning, and then a cup of cocoa or tea in the evening, which means I'll boil another two cups per day for hot drinks. I typically use cold water for cleaning up after supper, so no fuel consumption there.
Given all of the above, I'm going to boil about 1500 ml per day. OBVIOUSLY this is just an example, and I'm making everything uniform so it's easy to understand. In real life, the amount you boil may vary from day to day depending on your menu, how much you eat, whether or not you use hot water for personal hygiene or dishwashing, etc. This example is all about round numbers and easy to follow calculations. The numbers are reasonable, but of course you need to adjust everything to how you cook, how often you cook, how many people you cook for, etc.
Wow. Looks like a beautiful spot.
How many days will it take you to get there, how many meals will you eat on the way, and how much fuel do you need?
Second, I write down how much fuel it's going to take to boil each amount of water I've written down in step 1. For most stoves, that's about 7 or 8 g per 500 ml boil although you can get by with less if you follow the rules of stove fuel efficiency.
NOTE: If you use a Jetboil or other similar integrated canister stove or you use a heat exchanger pot, then instead of 7 to 8 g being the typical amount of fuel needed to boil 2 cups of water, you might plan on 5 to 6 g of fuel per boil.
Yes, you'll have to adjust these numbers. Again, this is just one example, using the "backpacker's standard" of 2 cups per boil, which is about what most freeze dried meals require. As you adjust these numbers, remember that it's more efficient per cup to boil a larger quantity than a smaller. In other words, if 2 cups requires, say, 8 g (4 g per cup), 3 cups might only require 10.5 g (3.5 g per cup), and 1 cup might require 4.5 g. Something like that. You need to adjust all these numbers based on your experience of how much fuel you actually use. For this example, I'm going to choose a number of 8 g per 500 ml boiled which is neither overly generous nor overly optimistic.
Nice spot to camp. It'd be a shame to run out of fuel and spoil such a perfect camp.
Third, I total up the amount of fuel that I'll need for the whole trip by summing the amount needed for each day. Many people do not cook breakfast on the first day or supper on the last; in that case you would need to adjust these calculations. This total amount needed has to be less than the amount contained in whatever canister I intend to bring. You should also add a "margin for error," particularly on cold weather trips. The more experience you have, the smaller margin you can plan on.
Given the example presented in the chart, below, I need about96 g of fuel for a four day trip or about 24 g per day. Yes, I know we might get better actual results than 8 g per 500 ml boiled which would give me different numbers, but let's just go with 8 g per 500 ml boiled for this example. If I need 96 g of fuel, and I take a 110 g canister of gas, I would have 14 g as a margin for error. You'd have to think about whether or not that's going to work for you. If the weather's warmer, then maybe that's fine. If it's colder, maybe plan on more. If you're with a group, maybe that's fine. If you're going solo, maybe plan on more. And so on. Think it through and bring the the amount you feel comfortable with.
East Vidette as seen from the John Muir Trail.
Don't let poor planning ruin your dream hike!
While these numbers in the below chart aren't actual data from a trip, they're within the realm of reason. Therefore, allocating 25 g of fuel per day isn't unreasonable until you get a better sense of how much your cooking actually requires. Twenty five is a fairly easy number to work with, and the most commonly used canisters contain about 100, 200, and 450 grams of fuel. Twenty five divides easily into 100, 200, and 450.
NOTE: For your first several trips, if you're new to backpacking, assume you'll need more fuel rather than less until you get a feel for how much fuel your style of cooking actually requires.
Amt Boiled (ml)
Fuel per boil (g)
Day1
Breakfast
500
8
Supper
500
8
Hot Drinks
500
8
Day2
Breakfast
500
8
Supper
500
8
Hot Drinks
500
8
Day3
Breakfast
500
8
Supper
500
8
Hot Drinks
500
8
Day4
Breakfast
500
8
Supper
500
8
Hot Drinks
500
8
4
6000
96
Average g of fuel per day:
24
As always, I thank you for joining me,
HJ
Note: All photos are from my 2015 John Muir Trail section hike (Onion Valley to Whitney Portal).
The author, out on the trail where he belongs.
Why on earth am I indoors blogging on stoves right now?
Who is making the highest quality backpacking stoves available today? At least in the US market, it's Soto Outdoors of Japan. Their latest entry is the Soto Amicus (OD-1NV), an upright canister stove.
Note: In addition to this review, I have two preliminary posts on the Soto Amicus that contain additional information and photographs:
What's an upright canister stove? Please see my recent blog post: What is a Remote Canister Stove? which describes the two major types of canister gas stoves (upright and remote) and lists the advantages and disadvantages of each. It's worth knowing the difference.
Overview
The Soto Amicus is a small, relatively lightweight, relatively inexpensive upright canister stove. There are dozens of such stoves available on the market today. How is the Amicus any different from any other stove? Well, the Amicus is the best built of the lot and has a really nice design, but that's not what sets it apart. Soto claims that they have developed a new type of burner head, one that can handle wind better than other stoves. This windproofness would set the Amicus apart from other stoves. So, either the Amicus handles wind better or it's really nothing special. Therefore, wind testing was the major focus of my field testing. Is Soto just "blowing smoke" or are they really on to something here?
See the sections on "Wind Testing" and "The Bottom Line in Wind," below.
Simul-testing the Soto Amicus vs. the Optimus Crux at Crystal Cove State Park
Build Quality
Who is the largest auto maker in the world? Well, it used to be General Motors, an American corporation, but now, it's Toyota, a Japanese corporation. Why? They build a better automobile. We've seen this transition from American corporations to Japanese corporations in many fields such as bicycles, electronics, fishing gear, etc. Typically, the Japanese engineering, ergonomics, and build quality is just plain better, and people are willing to pay more for it.
We may now be seeing this trend in backpacking gear as well. Montbell (of Japan) is a much sought after brand among backpackers in the know. Evernew (again, of Japan) makes some of the best ultralight titanium pots. And Soto makes the best backpacking stoves available today.
The Soto Amicus deserves an award for excellence in engineering. Such attention to detail.
Pot Supports
Soto's engineering and build quality is beyond reproach, but that doesn't mean that they've always read the market perfectly. Their first upright canister stove available in the United States, the Micro Regulator, was a good stove and was met with wide acceptance, but there were those who found the pot supports "fiddly" (they had to be first moved to a particular spot on their arms and then rotated into place) and didn't like that sometimes the pot supports would flop down when there was no pot on when the stove was moved.
.
Soto then came out with the WindMaster, which I consider to be the best upright canister stove available in the US market today. For those who are interested, I have a review of the Soto WindMaster available here on my blog. Again though, the pot supports were "different." They detached when the stove was packed away. The detachable pot supports could easily be lost if one were not careful. I myself was not bothered by this; I simply used a micro carabiner to clip the detached pot support to the valve handle of the stove the minute I took the pot support off. However, a lot of people just absolutely hated this feature.
On this, the Soto Amicus, Soto's third entry of this type into the US market, I think they've finally gotten it right. One does rotate the support into place, but on the Amicus, one does not have to find the "sweet spot" on the pot support to get it to rotate. One simply pushes it up into place in one smooth, effortless motion, and, once in place, they're not going anywhere. One has to push up and then push out, against the spring loading, to retract the pot support. It's easy to retract the pot support, but it's unlikely to happen on its own.
The spring loaded pot support rotates into place in one smooth motion and then clicks onto a hook and stays put. Nice.
The pot supports are literally so simple that a child could do it.
The pot supports? So easy that a child can do it.
And they work. Not only are they easy to extend and retract, not only do they stay in place once set, they're just danged good pot supports. Of its class, the Amicus has the best pot stability that I've seen. The WindMaster, if one gets the optional 4Flex pot support, has far better pot stability, but the WindMaster is a larger, more powerful, ultralight stove and is really not in the same class as the smaller, budget minded Amicus. The only stove that really comes close to the Amicus in this class is the Snow Peak GigaPower.
Part of why the Amicus has such good pot stability is that it has not the typical three but rather four pot supports. The Amicus also has more "teeth" on it's pot supports than most stoves, and those teeth are precisely made, gripping pots better. Many pot supports on other stoves are a bit rounded off, and they just don't grip as well.
My daughter demonstrating the stability of the Soto Amicus with a 1.9 L pot, which is a pretty good sized pot for such a little stove – but it's really not a problem with the Amicus.
Now, I've said that the Amicus has good pot stability. Does that mean you can use any size pot you like? Probably not. Something on the order of a 3L pot is probably a practical upper limit, and you'd want to be careful when stirring. I compared the pot stability of the Amicus to each of the following stoves. The Amicus had better pot stability with a wider range of pots than any of these stoves except the WindMaster (with 4Flex support mounted) although the GigaPower came close:
MSR Micro Rocket
MSR Pocket Rocket
Optimus Crux
Snow Peak LiteMax
Snow Peak GigaPower
Soto Micro Regulator
Soto WindMaster
Compactness/Packability
The Amicus is a fairly small stove. It's about the width of my hand.
The diminutive Amicus. It packs down small.
When the pot supports are folded away, it packs down pretty small. It fits easily in a 550 ml mug type pot. However note: While I could get the Amicus and a 110 g sized canister of fuel into the 550 ml mug type pot, I could not close the lid. However also note, I'm not aware of any stove that could fit in my little mug type pot along with a 110g canister with the lid closed although the Snow Peak LiteMax comes very very close. Even the Optimus Crux, which is a pretty flat stove when the burner is folded, cannot fit in this 550 ml mug with a canister and have the lid closed. The Amicus is about as packable as an MSR Micro Rocket. A Snow Peak GigaPower is slightly more compact. An Amicus far more compact than the MSR Pocket Rocket. The Soto Amicis is more compact than either the Soto Micro Regulator or the Soto WindMaster.
The Soto Amicus in a small 550 ml mug type pot.
Special Features
One of the outstanding features of the Soto line of upright canister stoves is their "Stealth" piezoelectric ignition system. The wire is run up through the burner column (rather than being on the outside), and the spark point is in the center of the burner rather on the rim. The Soto ignition is far less likely to snag on things and is less obtrusive.
The simple red button and housing of the Amicus' excellent piezoelectric ignition.
Notice how there are no exposed wires and that there is nothing mounted to the side of the burner.
With the spark point of the Stealth ignition located in the center of the burner, it is not directly in the flame, giving it an edge in reliability over other ignition systems.
The silver strip of metal in the center of the burner head is the spark point of the Amicus' excellent Stealth piezoelectric ignition.
Of all the stoves I have in my collection that have various forms of piezoelectric ignitions (I have at least 10), the Soto ignition system is far and away the most reliable, most sophisticated, and least obtrusive. No one else in the industry even comes close to the quality and reliability of the Soto Stealth Ignition.
That said, "good" and "perfect" are not one in the same. The Stealth ignition is the best in the business (nobody else really comes close), but even the best ignition is subject to breakage or failure. Always carry a second (or third) source of ignition such as a lighter, matches, or fire steel.
Note that the Stealth ignition is optional. A version of the Soto Amicus is available without the ignition.
Weight
Per the Soto website:
The Soto Amicus weighs 2.6 oz/75 g in the version without the Stealth ignition.
The Soto Amicus weighs 2.9 oz/81 g in the version with the Stealth ignition.
However, on my scale, the Amicus with ignition weighs 2.8 oz/78 g. For comparative purposes, I'll list the weights of several stoves in the same class. For reference, I'll also list the weights of the other two upright Soto canister stoves even those are higher end stoves and are not in the same class. These weights were all measured in grams by me on my scale. Weights per the manufacturer may differ.
Stove
Grams
Ounces
Soto WindMaster (with ignition)
66
2.3
Soto Micro Regulator (with ignition)
69
2.4
MSR Micro Rocket (no ignition)
73
2.6
Soto Amicus (with ignition)
78
2.8
Snow Peak Gigapower (no ignition)
86
3.0
MSR Pocket Rocket (no ignition)
86
3.0
Optimus Crux (no ignition)
88
3.1
The weight of the Amicus is generally in line with other stoves of its class, however there are higher end stoves like the Snow Peak LiteMax that are quite a bit lighter. There are also some really inexpensive stoves coming out of China like the FMS-116T at 1.7 oz/48 g (sold in the US as the Olicamp Kinetic Ultra), the FMS-300T at 1.6 oz/45g (sold in the US as the Olicamp Ion Micro), or the incredibly light BRS-3000T at 0.9 oz/25 g. Note however that none of the stoves out of China has anywhere near as good pot stability, and neither do they have the sophisticated ignition of a Soto stove. But each to his or her own I suppose.
In addition, it is worth noting that Japan has some of the highest gas stove safety standards in the world. I am not aware of any Chinese stoves that have been able to meet the strict Japanese standards. I have seen some US (Coleman) and European (Primus) brands on my trips to Japan.
The BRS-3000T is not to my knowledge certified to operate in the US. You can get one sort of "under the table" on eBay or Amazon, but no company sells it in the US. If the stove causes an injury or fails, you have little legal recourse.
Cooking Ability
Canister gas stoves generally cook well. They have a highly adjustable flame. If you adjust the flame well and have appropriate cookware, there isn't really much in the way of limitations to what you can cook. The Amicus is no exception. On the Amicus, I was able to get a barely there flame capable of a very low simmer.
Wind Testing
OK, now to the heart of the matter. As I said in the beginning, either the Amicus lives up to its claims of windproofness or there's really nothing that sets it apart from a whole host of similar stoves. Sure, the Amicus has better build quality and the really nice Stealth ignition – which absolutely should be considered when evaluating a stove, but those qualities alone aren't enough to make the Amicus truly stand out. On the other hand, Superior wind resistance would absolutely put the Amicus ahead of the pack.
But first, why should anyone care about wind? Well, in the extreme, a stove can just plain blow out, and blow out so often that one just can't cook with it. See the rather dramatic first video in Windburner vs. Jetboil Wind Testing.
But that's the extreme case. What about more typical winds? Well, depending on the circumstances, wind can really cut your fuel economy. Instead of the heat going into the pot, the heat gets blown out and away and is wasted. Whereas you might normally be able to boil 500 ml of water with 7 g of fuel, in wind, you might take 10 or 11 g of fuel. If you normally use 25 g of fuel per day, you're on a four day trip, and you're carrying a 110 g canister of fuel, you can't afford to be burning an extra 3 to 4 g of fuel per 500 ml boiled. At 3 to 4 g extra per 500 ml boiled, you're talking about something like 6 to 8 g extra of fuel per day which over four days equates to 24 to 32 g more fuel needed than usual – you're going to run out of fuel before the end of your trip!
Note: The above numbers are intended to be illustrative. I chose 25 g per day because 25 is easy to work with when you have a four day trip and canisters are between 100 g and 110 g in capacity. They are reasonable numbers, but they are not not actual observations. See Calculating the Fuel Needed for a Trip for how to calculate gas consumption for a trip and for how I got the quantity 25 g.
A stove with better wind handling has more constant fuel consumption which allows you to plan more accurately so that you don't run out of fuel. Of course you're going pick a sheltered spot to cook and all that, but still, wind can make your stove unpredictable. So a stove that can handle wind well is a desirable thing.
So, how did the Amicus do? Well, check out the below video. I'm just using my iPhone to shoot the video, so you'll have to turn up the sound.
Basically, I found Soto's claims to be true. This isn't all that surprising given that I had already established that their WindMaster was better in wind than other stoves. See the video in my review of the Soto WindMaster. But I couldn't just assume that the Amicus would be as good. Yes, the Amicus did have the same type of semi-enclosed, concave burner head, but the Amicus' head was smaller and farther away from the pot.
How did I establish that Soto's claims of superior wind handling are true? By running simultaneous test after test after test.
Side by side, simultaneous testing of the Soto Amicus vs. the Optimus Crux.
My "baseline" stove was the Optimus Crux. Both the Crux and the Amicus are rated at 10,200 BTU's. In still air, they both boil water in about the same time; there's no significant difference in boil time between the two.
However, as soon as the wind kicked up, the Soto Amicus always pulled out ahead. Both stoves took longer to boil in wind, but the Crux was far more affected. Just in observing the flame, I could see that the Amicus' flame was far less affected by wind.
A highly trained Adventures in Stoving engineer observing the flame characteristics of the Soto Amicus in wind.
Not only could I visually observe that the Amicus' flame was far less affected, I could run the Amicus at a far lower setting. As low as I could turn down the flame, the Amicus never blew out. Not so with the open burner Crux. I was doing a simmer test with the Crux, the flame was steady and had been running for some time, but when a gust of wind came through, the Crux blew out, and I had to re-light the stove.
But it is the boil times that speak the loudest. The normally equal Amicus would boil 40 to 45 seconds faster than the Crux in moderate winds with occasional gusts. Clearly, the Amicus is the better stove in wind.
Are these results fairly universal? I mean I just tested the Amicus against one stove, right? Well, it is true that I did test against just one stove, but burner heads are fairly generic. With open burner heads, the flames are just more vulnerable. In addition, I got the same results with the WindMaster (which was tested against a different stove). The Windmaster has the same type of burner head as the Amicus. I am therefore pretty confident that the Amicus will fare better in wind than any unprotected burner head.
Now, does this mean that you can cook in gale force winds with the Amicus? Uh, no. If you want that kind of windproofness, you've got to go with something like the MSR Windburner or the MSR Reactor.
The Bottom Line in Wind
The Amicus will be far more consistent and predictable than other stoves, giving you the ability to a) plan more accurately, b) conserve fuel, and c) simmer better in wind.
Price
The $40 MSRP of the Amicus (without ignition, add $5 for the ignition version) is something of a first for Soto. Soto has heretofore introduced fairly high end stoves. Their first upright canister stove available was the Micro Regulator, MSRP $70, and their second was the WindMaster, MSRP $75. The Amicus, with ignition, has an MSRP of $45, and without ignition, the MSRP is $40. This is a huge jump in affordability for a Soto stove, and you're getting a heck of a lot of quality and functionality for that low price.
As of 7 December 2017, Backcountry Edge has the Soto Amicus on sale for $31.96 without ignition or $35.96 for the version with the ignition. That is a steal of a deal. Note: I have a) no financial relationship with Backcountry Edge, and b) I have never purchased anything from them. This is just information; this is not a recommendation. Caveat emptor.
Summary – The Soto Amicus
What's good about it?
Excellent build quality
High quality piezoelectric ignition system
Best of breed pot stability
Good packability/compactness
Easy to use, well thought out pot supports (I think they finally got it right with the Amicus)
Affordable (excellent value for the dollar compared to other major stove company prices)
Clearly superior wind resistance
What's not so good about it?
It's a little heavier than I would like.
The Soto Amicus: Highly recommended
In conclusion, as I reflect on the Soto Amicus, I find that there isn't much that I dislike about it except that perhaps it could be a bit lighter. It's a nice stove that's head and shoulders above the other stoves in its class.
As always, I thank you for joining me.
HJ
Appendix I – Technical Data
Manufacturer: Soto Outdoors
Date Available: Currently available
Manufacturer's Website: http://www.sotooutdoors.com
MSRP: $40 (no ignition); $45 (with Stealth ignition)
Weight (measured): 78 g/2.8 oz
Materials: Primarily steel
Packed dimensions: 1 9/16" x 1 9/16" x 2 7/8" (40 mm x 40 mm x 73 mm).
Unpacked dimensions: 4 1/8" x 4 1/8" x 3 5/16" (105 mm x 105 mm x 84 mm).
Size/Model tested: The version with the Stealth ignition.
Requirements: A standard threaded canister of gas (sold separately).
Warranty Information: Contact Soto Outdoors through their website (see above).
Colors available: Silver.
Appendix II – Disclosures
The stove used in this review was provided by Soto Outdoors at no cost to me. Inasmuch as I own three other Soto stoves as well as over 100 other stoves of various types, sizes, and vintages, a free stove is highly unlikely to influence my review one way or the other. I have reviewed this stove as objectively as I am able. I have had no business dealings with Soto Outdoors other than to contact them in order to obtain the stove used in this review. I receive no remuneration from Soto or anyone else for my reviews. I receive no benefit when someone purchases a Soto stove. I do own multiple Soto stoves; all such stoves were obtained through third parties except the stove used in this review.
In addition, just so you know, I earn very little from this blog – typically about a dollar a day, maybe a little more. I've earned $30.71 according to Google for this month. That's enough to pay for hosting fees and for fuel, so in that sense the blog is self-supporting, but that amount of money is nothing when one has a family of three to feed, house, etc. Basically, this is my oddball little hobby, and that's about all it is.
Appendix III – Calculating Fuel Needs This section has been moved to a separate blog post: Calculating Fuel Needs.
The GeoShield is a new remote canister gas stove from Snow Peak of Japan.
What's that? You're not sure exactly what a "remote" canister stove is? No worries. See: What is a Remote Canister Stove? It's worth knowing the differences between the two major types of canister stoves.
The Snow Peak GeoShield remote canister gas stove
The GeoShield is a really interesting stove. It's different. It consists of three main components:
The burner, which does not have legs; the burner mounts directly to the windscreen.
The windscreen, which is series of aluminum plates.
A base plate which serves as a heat reflector.
The rather interesting burner of the Snow Peak GeoShield.
The burner does not have legs but instead mounts directly to the windscreen.
The GeoShield's base plate/heat reflector and the windscreen, shown here snapped together.
An optional hand held piezoelectric ignition comes with the stove. The ignition is actually a nice one, but I'm not really big on separate piezoelectric ignitions. When an ignition is built into a stove, it's super convenient. If I have to fish around in my pack for it, I may as well bring a conventional lighter or a fire steel which can light other things besides just a stove. Piezoelectric ignitions are in general single purpose: They will light your stove but nothing else. Piezoelectric ignitions do fail, particularly at higher elevations, so one should always bring a second source of ignition (matches, lighter, fire steel, etc.). If I'm going to have to bring a secondary source of ignition anyway, I don't see the advantage of a detached piezoelectric ignition.
The hand held piezoelectric ignition that comes with the Snow Peak GeoShield stove.
Now, if you saw up above how large the windscreen looks when fully assembled, take heart. The Snow Peak engineers actually have something kind of nifty here. Everything folds up into a pretty small package.
The base plate and windscreen fold up and fit into the small pouch, shown at right.
The pouch comes with instructions printed directly on the pouch.
To assemble the windscreen, one simply pulls on the cable that holds everything together, and then wraps the cable around the provided cleat on the windscreen.
To assemble the windscreen, simply pull the cable taut, and wrap the cable around the cleat as shown.
Once the windscreen is assembled, the base plate snaps into place in the provided slots.
The clips on the base plate snap onto the strip of metal in the grooves in the windscreen.
The stove then clips on to the windscreen. The windscreen, baseplate, and stove act as one single assembly when all is snapped together. The windscreen has a high configuration (for pots larger than the diameter of the windscreen) and a low configuration (for pots smaller than the windscreen). One simply swaps the base plate and the burner to switch between the two configurations.
The stove,base plate, and windscreen, all snapped together.
The configuration show here is the "high" configuration where the burner is at the height of the windscreen.
The high configuration allows one to use pots that are larger in diameter than the windscreen,
If this all sounds like a lot of fiddling around, well, it is, kind of, but it's really not all that bad. With a couple of practice runs, I could assemble everything in about 40 to 45 seconds. It's certainly easier than pumping and priming a white gasoline or kerosene type stove.
And what do you get for all this? Well, a really large, stable cooking platform. I mean this thing is solid. It's perfect for Scouts, families with children, or any group that might be worried about inexperienced users knocking over a pot. It would also be great for anyone who wants superb stability or a big cooking platform. You could easily put a 5 or 6 liter pot on this thing, with no problem.
My daughter, the Adventures in Stoving spokesmodel, cooking on a Snow Peak GeoShield with a 2.6 liter pot.
I have absolutely no fear of that pot tipping over and scalding her. The GeoShield is extremely stable.
This is a great stove for families with children, Cub Scouts, younger Boy or Girl Scouts, etc.
I could see this stove being used for guided trips, horse/mule packing, motorcycle touring etc. The GeoShield would be ideal for any trip where space were at a premium but a large, stable cooking surface were needed.
When packed, the GeoShield is incredibly compact for such a large stove.
For size reference, the stove is shown here with a 230 g canister of gas.
Something else to note is that the GeoShield does have a generator (a "pre-heat loop"), so it can be safely used with the canister inverted for cold weather use. See Stoves for Cold Weather II for details.
OK, so this is a great stove if you want a big cooking surface but need something that packs away small, and it can be used for colder weather than regular upright canister stoves. What is it not good for?
Well, smaller pots for one thing. The Windscreen has one setting. Big. In addition, the burner head is fairly wide. Flames go up around the sides of a small pot and are wasted. This really isn't a stove for small pots. I really wouldn't recommend the stove for pots of less than 1.5 liters, and those pots would best be wider than tall.
A small 550 ml pot on the GeoShield.
Notice how much empty space is around the burner with such a small pot.
The GeoShield really doesn't work well with small pots.
And then there's my major complaint regarding the stove: The Windscreen. It's really not all that great of a windscreen in my opinion. It's a great, stable platform, but it's only marginal as a windscreen. Oh, it's fine in light breezes, but if the wind picks up at all, even moderate breezes go right through the rather airy windscreen. I suppose that they deliberately put all the holes in the windscreen to reduce its weight, but those holes do allow a lot of wind to pass through. In addition, it's not a full 360 degree windscreen. The opening at the rear of the windscreen is large enough that I can put my whole hand through it.
There is a gap in the windscreen large enough to pass one's hand through it.
The windscreen is also too short to be fully effective. Normally, one would want the windscreen to extend up 75% of the way up the side of the pot when the pot is on the stove. Because of it's design, the GeoShield's windscreen is only going to have about a finger's width of coverage when in low mode, and none at all in high mode.
The windscreen only extends up the side of the pot about the width of a finger. It's not enough.
The windscreen has a lot of holes in it. While the hole no doubt reduce weight, they also allow the wind to come in.
Really, in anything more than mild breezes, you have to bring a separate windscreen if you want to protect the GeoShield's burner from wind.
The GeoShield's flame being forced over to the left in a light to moderate breeze.
The Snow Peak GeoShield
What's good about it?
Very stable
Large cooking surface
Packs up really small for a cooking platform of it's size
Reasonable "fiddle factor" when considering how compact it is when stowed and yet how large it is when deployed.
Has a generator ("pre-heat loop"), so it can be used safely with the canister inverted for cold weather use. See Stoves for Cold Weather II for details.
What's not so good about it?
You really need to carry a separate windscreen in anything more than a light breeze
Heavy for its class (see Appendix, below)
The durability of the base plate and its connection to the windscreen is somewhat uncertain
Limited to larger pots and pans only.
The Snow Peak GeoShield – recommended for:
Families with small children, Scouts, or any young, inexperienced user.
Those who need a large cooking surface that packs up small
Anyone needing a large, stable cooking surface.
Base camping, trailhead camping, etc.
Winter use (but study up on this; there are limits)
The Snow Peak GeoShield – not recommended for:
Soloists or anyone who uses small pots
The weight conscious (although what is heavy to one isn't necessarily heavy to another)
I thank you for joining me,
HJ
Appendix. A point by point consideration of those things which make for a good stove.
Suitability – Is this stove suitable for what I want to do?
Cooking – The GeoShield can pretty much support any type of cooking from high heat, rapid boiling and snow melting to slow simmering. The fine control of the flame is very good.
Conditions – The GeoShield has superior cold weather performance when compared to upright canister stoves. The GeoShield will handle windy conditions well if you bring a separate windscreen for it. The windscreen that comes with the stove is inadequate by itself.
Capacity – The GeoShield can support pots of nearly any size from about 250 ml to about six liters (possibly more), but anything smaller than 1500 ml will be really inefficient. Best use is for pot sizes of two liters and up, and that's for pots that are wider than they are tall.
Reliability/Robustness – Can it “take a licking and keep on ticking?”
I found the stove to be quite solid. The attachment of the base plate to the windscreen may not last long term, but if it did fail, one could simply lay the base plate on the ground below the burner.
As with all canister stoves, one must keep the threaded area clean, and one should avoid spilling food on the burner head. Do not set the stove down in the dirt if you can avoid it. One should also keep the canister threads clean lest abrasives (dirt, grit, etc.) get into the threads of your stove. Always use the cap on the canister when not in use. Avoid Coleman brand canisters which don't have a cap – or save a cap from another brand and use it if you buy a Coleman canister. Why Coleman doesn't provide a cap on their canisters is beyond me. Dumb idea, Coleman.
Weight – The GeoShield's weights are as follows:
Burner. 210 g/7.4 oz.
Windscreen. 151 g/5.3 oz
Base plate. 29 g/1 oz
Handheld piezoelectric ignition. 14 g/0.5 oz
Stove bags. 5 g/0.2 oz (each)
Total 390 g/13.8 oz without ignition or stove bags.
Grand Total 414 g/14.6 oz with ignition and both stove bags.
Price – MSRP $100, a bit on the high side, but it is a lot of stove. Always look for sales. Never be in a hurry to purchase gear. MassDrop has offered this stove for sale. You might bug them to run another "drop" on this stove if you want one. See also Disclosures, below.
Stability – Best stability of just about any backpacking type stove anywhere.
Efficiency (i.e. fuel economy) – Well, it depends. If you bring a separate windscreen, it will do fine as long you don't go heavy on the gas. The GeoShield has a big burner and will eat gas if you run it on high. Would you run your automobile with the pedal always pressed all the way down to the floor? Well, not if you wanted reasonable gas mileage. So it is with the GeoShield. Run it at a reasonable setting, and it will do fine. If you don't bring a separate windscreen, and it's a windy day, you may eat through a lot gas trying to heat things up.
Windproofness – Poor to fair at best with the provided windscreen. Excellent if you bring a good windscreen to supplement the one that comes with the stove. Because it is a remote canister stove, a full 360 degree windscreen can and should be used.
Compactness – The GeoShield is very compact for a stove of its size.
Ease of use – Some set up is required, generally more than most remote canister stoves, but not as much as with a white gasoline or kerosene type stove.
Ease of maintenance/field repair – Like most canister gas stoves, tools and spares are not included with the stove. In my testing, I never encountered a problem with the stove, but I haven't had the stove long enough to really have a good sense of whether or not it's maintenance free or not. Inasmuch as it is a canister stove, I do not anticipate a great deal of maintenance headaches.
Speed – Decent speed, but the speed will vary with the conditions, fuel, and type of pot. Honestly, I think you should be worried more about fuel economy (efficiency) in the back country than speed. As long as the speed is reasonable, focus on conserving fuel over fast boil times.
Noise – Average. About the same as most ported gas stoves, i.e. fairly quiet. Not as quiet as an alcohol stove but no where near as loud as a liquid fueled stove with a "roarer" type burner (e.g. Primus Omnifuel, MSR XGK or DragonFly, Optimus Nova, etc.)
Availability. The GeoShield uses standard threaded canisters. One can use any reputable brand of canister gas. See Can I Use Any Brand of Gas Canister? Standard threaded canisters are widely available in the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Availability may be limited elsewhere. In some areas, particularly in France, non-threaded canisters are the norm. In the Middle East and Eastern Europe, only puncture type canisters (no valve) may be available. No matter where you are planning to go, check the availability of fuel.
Versatility. Generally, only threaded canisters may be used, but there are adapters that will allow one to use non-threaded valved canisters, puncture type canisters, 100% propane canisters, and 100% butane bayonet-connector type canisters. Always check availability of adapters before embarking on a trip. If possible, obtain and test adapters in advance. Some adapters from China are of extremely poor (i.e. dangerous) quality. Liquid fuels such as alcohol, gasoline, or kerosene may not be used.
Fuel economy. Reasonable on the GeoShield, but remember, much depends on you. See Fuel Economy with Stoves.
Morality/Ethics. Canister gas is generally considered to be better for the environment than wood fires. Use of wood fires a) often lead to an area being stripped of wood and b) have significantly higher fire danger. However, on the other hand, while canisters can be re-cycled, most of the canisters wind up in the land fill. Even recycling of canisters takes energy and other resources and is not as low impact, environmentally, as a liquid fueled stove or alcohol stove. Some people have gone back to liquid fueled stoves (gasoline or kerosene) or alcohol stoves to reduce their environmental impact.
Safety/Legality.
General. Standard threaded canisters are generally considered safe; however, do not allow the temperature of the canister to exceed 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit). Leaving a canister in the back window of a car on a hot day is not a good idea. Neither is allowing boiling water to spill onto the canister. It probably won't explode, but do you really want to chance it?
The valve on a canister can stick in the open position when you disconnect the stove. NEVER disconnect the stove near a candle or other open flame or hot surface. Disaster may result if the valve sticks open. If the valve does stick in the open position, simply replace the burner on the canister and try again. If the valve on the canister continues to stick, leave the burner on the stove and control the gas with the valve on the burner.
Fire safety and regulations. In terms of fire safety, canisters are fairly safe, but care must be taken not to allow the canister to tip over while the stove is cold. If the liquid fuel inside the canister goes to the burner before the flame, a fireball several feet in diameter may erupt. This may cause an injury, a fire, or worse. Canister stoves are generally allowed during most fire bans in the western United States whereas alcohol and wood stoves are generally not allowed. Regulations may vary elsewhere. A California Campfire Permit is required in California for stoves of all types. There are also total fire bans that are sometimes invoked. Always check with the local land management agency where you intend to hike.
Canister stoves do not require priming and are free from the dangers of priming.
Disclosures.
The stove used in this review was provided to me free of charge by Massdrop, an on-line retailer. I receive no remuneration from Massdrop for this or any other review.
I have purchased several items from Massdrop, but I did so as an ordinary customer; I received no discounts. I once did receive some free socks from Massdrop. I actually have a job and can afford to buy my own socks, so I don't think the socks in question will sway my opinion one way or the other with regard to my reviews. However, if Massdrop wants to send my wife and I on a two week all expenses paid trip to some exotic locale, I might have to seriously rethink my review process. Given Massdrop's somewhat limited resources, I suspect we're pretty safe here.
You will note that I did mention Massdrop in my review as one possible place to obtain the stove reviewed. I receive no compensation for my recommendation; indeed the recommendation was unsolicited and was based on my personal opinion alone. Neither do I receive any compensation if you, the reader, make a purchase from Massdrop. However, I do like dark chocolate, so if you save enough money by purchasing through Massdrop, by all means feel free to spend the cash saved on buying me chocolate. 65% or better cacao content, please.
Sometimes you'll hear me (or others) talking about "remote" canister stoves. What the heck is a remote canister stove? And how is that different from just a regular upright canister stove? (like a Pocket Rocket)
A pot of tea on a remote canister stove.
Note how the gas canister is not at the burner but rather is at a distance, connected by a hose.
Well, there are two general classes of canister gas stoves:
An upright canister stove, which mounts directly onto the top of the canister of gas.
A remote canister stove, which has the gas off to the side, connected by a hose.
Why might this be important? Well, each type has real advantages – and disadvantages. You need to understand the pros and cons in order to make an intelligent choice.
Take a look at the below photo.
An upright canister stove, left, and a remote canister stove, right.
Note how the set up on the left, the upright canister stove, sits up really high. Generally, upright canister stoves, because of their height are a little more "tippy" and are more exposed to wind.
On the other hand, the set up on the right, a remote canister stove, is far lower, giving it greater stability and making it less exposed to any potential breezes. In addition, you can use a full 360 degree windscreen on a remote canister stove whereas you cannot safely do so with an upright canister stove. Why? Well, with an upright canister stove, the canister (of highly flammable gas) is directly under the burner. Surround the burner, and you surround the canister as well. The windscreen traps a lot of heat. Heat a canister too far, and KABOOM! Uh, you wouldn't want that, trust me.
Canisters are required to be able to withstand temperatures of 50C (122F) – which really isn't all that hot if you think about it. There are plenty of days in deserts around the world where the afternoon high is nearly that temperature.
Now, will a canister blow up the minute it reaches 51C? Probably not, but it's going to blow somewhere above 50C, and do you really want to be around when that happens? By the way, it's generally a bad idea to let boiling water spill over onto a canister. Boiling water is 100 C (212F) at sea level. The canister is designed to withstand 50 C (122F). Get it?
On the other hand, with a remote canister stove, the fuel is nowhere near the burner; it's off to the side. In fact, a windscreen will separate the fuel from the heat of the flame, making your stove actually safer to operate.
A remote canister stove nestled deep down inside a full windscreen – impervious to normal winds.
Do NOT try this with a regular upright canister stove.
Well, shoot, more stable and far better wind resistance, that sounds pretty good. Why doesn't everyone just use a remote canister stove?
Well, not so fast. Remote canister stoves are heavier, less compact, and more expensive. Upright canisters stoves are affordable, compact, and light.
Here's a list of some of the pros and cons of remote canister stoves, below.
Remote Canister Stoves
Pros:
More stable, less likely to tip. Great for families with small children, younger Scouts, et al.
Fewer choices (there are far more upright canister stoves to choose from)
Many people that plan to be out in winter, use larger pots or pans, place a premium on safety and pot stability, or need improved wind resistance will choose a remote canister stove.
I hope you have found this post useful. I thank you for joining me,
