Cookware: pot options.

My wife and I currently just use a Snow Peak 700 and a polypropylene cup. This works great for solo uses and when we go together, we each bring our own SP 700 and stoves to make life a little easier: one boils water for two hot drinks, the other boils water for two meals.

However, as you can imagine this system uses up quite a bit of gas and thus we are in the market for a new pot that has a capacity of around 1.3L-- this way we can just bring one stove and one pot, and only use one boil per meal.

Having had a quick look around on REI it appears that one pot is going to cost us about $60 (REI Ti), are there any cheaper alternatives? I noticed that the GSI Pinnacle Soloist has a 1.1L pot in the set-up for about $40-- anybody have any experience with this pot?

I own a 1.5 L JetBoil.

To lighten it:
1. I removed both the wire handles and
2. used a Dremel tool W/disc to cut off the handle attatchment metal plate.
3. Also I cut the center out of the bottom plastic "Flux Ring" protector. (But you could just keep it whole & use it as a second plate, the lid being the 1st plate.)

Eric

Winny
Why not use the dremel to remove the bottom of the pan?
I just don't believe in cutting off handles of $60 pans so you lose the designed in convenience for what .5 oz? .2 oz? leave a bandaid out of your first aid kit to make up for it
I'd suggest an aluminum pan, cheap, light, better to cook in because aluminum spreads the heat a bit more evenly. That said all of my stuff is Ti because I had more money than sense when I bought them, and I was working on Ti aircraft at that time (thus the money) and I was willing to pay $300 for a Ti pan so when they came out at only $90 well sir - I got a set of em, however they are still 100% perfect AND THEY STILL HAVE THEIR HANDLES...
Jim

For a pan of the size you desire, I would definitely go for aluminum, perhaps even unlined if all you will do is boil water. I love my mini-Trangia pot, but it is a little smaller than what you want. There are lots of options out there.

Aluminum isn't as tough as titanium. I had an Optimus fail on me last year. It was only thirty-five years old (and my main item for most of those).

oldranger
lets see 35 years, is that all thats failed in the last 35 years? Anyway how much did that pot cost 35 years ago?
Jim

The 1.3L Evernew/REI is, for me, the perfect capacity and shape for cooking for two. You can find the uncoated version for less, or wait for the inevitable REI sale and get it for considerably below $60. IIRC I got mine for $25 several years ago. The uncoated version is quite indestructible.

The MSR 1.5L Titan pot is also a good size and shape, but I believe you have to buy it as part of a set and the lid is a little less handy.

Cheers,

Edit: Here it is for $45:

http://www.antigravitygear.com/proddetail.php?prod=ECA253

It was my first purchase from REI as a member. The cookkit and the Primus stove was $8.95.

My 1962 VW had a flat tire once. Is that what you mean? Everything else is going just fine (heh,heh).....

Try agg

http://www.antigravitygear.com/proddetail.php?prod=MK2QNS&cat=113

I know this is off topic a bit. This brings to mind. I only carry a heine pot. What would I do if it failed/developed a leak?Hummmm? Maybe a little thicker pot. Hummm.

I just saw a new Imusa pot at Walmart that was about 1.5 liters for around $3. They also had a .7 liter one for $1.95, so I got two.

OK, let's get the tech experts involved: if you're boiling the same amount of water, wouldn't you use about the same amount of gas, whether you use one stove or two? (I don't know, because I have little to no experience cooking for two.) If fuel usage is the same, a change might not be worth it.

I've used the soloist pot once, and it's not too bad - just a bit large and heavy for my needs.

How about the Snow Peak 1400 titanium? It's on sale right now at Backcountrygear.com for $40. it has an added advantage: the lid is large enough and deep enough to function as a plate. Take your 700's for mugs, one eats from the pot, and the other from the lid. (Unless you're doing freezer bag cooking.)

The lid from the IMUSA grease pot fits the smaller mug perfectly. The knob is a bit heavy but can easily be replaced with a small piece of wire for lifting. The small IMUSA mug with the grease pot lid is my favorite solo setup: 3.1 oz complete and quite sturdy.

The grease pot holds a bit more water and only weighs 3.6 oz.

Wouldn't it be faster to boil two smaller amounts of water, than one large amount of the total volumne? Two stoves and two pots may weigh more than one stove and one large pot.

There are lots of variables in this question.

IMO the biggest variable is the windscreen. Next is how wide the pot is. Then how much water you heat at a time - two 12 oz. boils is more effienct than a single 24 oz. boil.

I like the idea of each person having all the gear needed. If you get lost then it is nice to have a cuppa while you waiting to be found.

The 1.3 wide Evernew you be my choice.

I would agree with food that the windscreen is the most important point, however the area of the bottom of the pan does make a big difference, the bigger the better because you get more square inches to transfer heat in, AND the surface to volume ratio of the larger vessel/windscreen system is smaller so there is less area (per volume of water) to radiate heat out or to lose heat through conduction to cold wind, so of course there are many curves of this complex function that intersect someplace at an optimal configuration.

I would argue that two 12 ounce boils takes less energy than one 24 ounce based on two things, according to the laws of thermodynamics the most heat will transfer when the temperature difference is maximum, however the difference in the flame temperature and the temperature of a pot is not that great between a cold pot and a hot pot, however if there is condensation on a cold pot and it drips into or interferes with the heat source it may lessen the heat output (thus perhaps this is where foods idea comes from) of the stove/fire. Also a flame which does not get to burn fully before being cooled (by the pan) will generate more carbon monoxide and I've read that most stoves have too low of pot supports and raising the pot up an inch higher will let the flame burn more completely before its cooled, since its the colimn of rising hot air that actually carries the heat.

All of this suggests that starting with a smaller amount of water and then adding more after the original amount is warm might be the most efficient as the pan could be warmed enough at first to prevent condensation on the bottom of it.

Small pots are not efficient and the very worst pot I ever measured was the MSR kettle. I would assume that the factors making it inefficient would also apply to all small bottom pots.

Also the difference between laboratory testing and real world usage is great. It can take up to 45 minutes in a wind without a windscreen to accomplish what can be done in 3 minutes inside without a windscreen. You have to assume that in cold weather it will take more energy. The more heat your stove puts out and the quicker you can heat your water the less heat will be lost to the air, however a stove may become less efficient if it puts out too much.

It is my own belief based on controlled experiments inside and outside in various conditions (and lots of experience cooking in the cold without taking data) that a covered pan with a heat exchanger with a good windscreen coming all of the way to the top of the pan, but with good air supply to the burner, will be most efficient at between 10,000 and 15,000 Btu, and that insulating the lids makes no measureable difference. There may simply be too big of flames extending above the top of the pan at 15,000 Btu and that energy is of course lost, but if the water in the pan is deep enough to pick up energy from the sides as well as the bottom it increases the heat transfer area. I think a 2 liter pan has about the optimal area and I always use a 2 liter pan for snow melting unless I am alone and don't really care.
Jim YMMV

I'm more likely to "cook" for two as opposed to boil-and-reconstitute, so a larger pot provides a lot more flexibility. Plus, two generally share a single stove, which would be a weight saving (especially with canister or WG stoves).

My $0.02.

My Dear James,

Chris, the OP, wanted a pot around 1.3 L or larger. The JB 1.5 L pot fits the bill and I recommend it due to the neoprene cozy and bottom heat exchanger for a bit more fuel efficiency.

BUT, removing steel handles and the steel handle attatchment point does lower the weight by a few oz., (not a few 10ths of an ounce) I now use a very light, skeletonized, aluminum pot gripper. No bandaids needed - so far. :0)

I do have one Ti utensil, a skillet. Realized it was a BIG mistake when I saw how poorly it spread heat. A skillet, especially, needs to spread heat evenly. Who the he!! ever TESTED that thing before marketing it???? Nobody who is a backpacker, for sure. I'll stay with aluminum pots & skillets W/ heavy anodizing inside from now on.

Anyway, I very seldom bother carrying a skillet unless I'm cooking for a group. Then I get some other sucker to carry it.

Eric

Sluggo
I have the Ti skillet and actually carry and use it.
You have to hold it by the handle (which I didn't cut off) though above the heat. I can even cook pancakes on a campfire with it, but ya can't set it on the fire.
Jim

If it cost $1.00 or a hundred dollars it doesn't matter. It lasted for 35 years....sabre1004...

I use a Hienie pot too and have been using it for quite a while and it has never failed in any shape , form or fashion. It does a great job and I would think as far as reliability it would be the least of all of the pot designs...sabre11004...

It's kind of funny that we are talking about this right now. I just did a test run with three stoves (designed very much alike) and heated two 16 oz.(of water) containers (identical containers)with two of the stoves and 32 oz.(same container) of water with the other. The two 16 oz.(of water) containers came to a boil much faster and with much less fuel than the one 32 oz.(of water) container, so with that being said I think that it would apply to 12 oz./24oz...at least in theory it would....sabre11004...

interesting...I would have guessed otherwise. Something to remember....

The shape of the pot can also determine time to boil. A wide and shallow will boil faster than a tall/narrow/deep one.

As well, the style of stove has a play - depending on the flame focus. Certain stoves work better with different shapes of pots.....

Always interesting: home stove tests. Be aware that although the results lack accuracy because they are usually done without wind and at warmer temps (both ambient and H2O temp) than in the field. Also, the metal makes a diff. Titanium does not transmit heat as fast as aluminum.

On Titanium vs HAA. Ti heats hot but also cools down faster. HAA usually heats more evenly and retains heat longer. This leads to less burning if one is actually cooking.

Ti is considerably thinner than most metals - though some HAA pots are catching up with wall thinness.

When I test stoves and pots, I do it with water just above freezing by a few temps (similar to stream water at altitude) and always test outside. If one wants to get really nerdy, use thermometers that are calibrated. Our weather here is excellent for testing as we have wind and often have temps of 40's to 60's - about what we see on trail outside of summer.

I guess if I used the circular corrugated heat diffuser & stand-off aupport that came with my Backpacker's Pantry Oven (fiberglass "yurt" pot cover) I could cook W/ thei skillet.

But that's silly to carry all that crap. And I don't want to sit there holding the skillet above the fire when I can use an aluminum skillet directly on the fire.

I think that Ti skillet may end up as a C Cone Inferno winter base to sit on the snow with layers of fiberglass and 1/8" plywood screwed to it. At least it will have served SOME useful purpose.

Eric

[quote=sarbar]The shape of the pot can also determine time to boil. A wide and shallow will boil faster than a tall/narrow/deep one.

You're very close here, think of the shape of the water instead. The shape of 1 inch of water in a 3 inch diameter pot is wide and shallow. 6 inches of water in the same pot is tall and narrow.

Since the water assumes the shape of the pot, I think that you are making a distinction without a difference in this case.

Not really. The profile of 1" of water in a 3" dia. pot may be OK as far as heating effectiveness is concerned. But 6" of water in the same 3" dia. pot will not heat as effectively.

One must also consider the burner configuration and shape of the flame. Flame spilling around the bottom and up the sides is a sign of inefficiency. As a result a narrow pot will always be a poor match for a wide burner WRT efficiency but can be fine perfectly fine on a stove with a narrow flame.

That said, sometimes a tall, narrow pot fits one's needs better from a packability standpoint and a little efficiency loss is a fair tradeoff.

Cheers,

Saber11004, regarding the difference between splitting a boil in two parts (2 16oz portions vice 1 32 oz portion) how much time and gas was saved? Trying to figure out if the difference is significant enough to matter to me.

I can never seem to find these in my local Walmart or Target. Is this something you've fond that they carry only occasionally? Any other places to look?

If you're looking for the grease pots--KMart has them. Look in the kitchen accessories section, along with big spoons, rolling pins and such.

My Grease pot I found at wal mart bottom shelf in utensil isle not in the pans. Mine has a handle on it. If the handel was removed it would be as light as many expensive Titanium pots!

Watch what you are buying depending on your use. You can't use one style of the Wally World grease pot with a Caldera Cone because the lip turns to the inside and not to the outside (and thus can't be suspended by the lip). Maybe that doesn't matter to you.

nope it has a handle thanks. and also my fuel canister and new coleman exponent F1 fit nice inside with windscreen and spork! I may trim the handle to a tab to knock a ounce or so off ? I havent decided.