Cold Weather Gas Stove Use

In early October, a few friends and I went up to Alaska's North Slope on a caribou hunt. To use firearms, you have to hike five miles off the road, beyond the bow-and-arrow only zone. We knew it would be really important to keep our gear weight to an absolute minimum, as we'd hopefully be packing out an additional few hundred pounds of caribou meat. One way of doing this was the decision to bring my MSR Reactor instead of a heavier liquid-fuel stove, even though temps would be down to about zero degrees, if not colder. I knew I'd have my work cut out to boil water and melt snow for three people for up to four days on the windswept tundra, but I was up for the challenge and hoped my trusty Reactor was, too.

For three days, I warmed and swapped out between two fuel canisters while melting snow and boiling water. We saw temps down to about -5F, maybe colder, while I used the stove both outside on the tundra and inside my GoLite Shangri-La 3. In all usage, I insulated the canister from the snow and cold ground with a one foot by one foot piece of closed-cell foam and used one MSR and one Brunton canister, alternately, warming each before and during the use of the other, and continually trying to keep the canisters at the same temperature and fuel level. I definitely saw a difference between the two.

For the first day and a half, I thought I could see a performance difference between the Brunton and the MSR canisters. The Brunton seemed to perform inadequately when compared to the MSR, but the difference was slight. I routinely had to swap out canisters, on all three days, from every five to fifteen minutes, depending on ambient temperature, canister temperature, and fuel level. Once the canisters got to less-than-full status, however, the MSR ended up spending much more time on the Reactor for the final day and a half, as the Brunton was only good for the time it took me to warm the MSR canister inside my jacket or sleeping bag as I sat and melted snow. Often times, when the temps were colder, I had to prematurely remove the Brunton canister to put on the not-yet-warm MSR can, as the Brunton was just wasting fuel and barely operating the stove. The MSR canister would last noticeably longer than the Brunton, even though it started at a colder canister temperature, as I had plenty of time to warm the Brunton during the MSR canister use, but not the latter.

I would never use a Brunton canister in cold weather again. Until I test JetBoil and SnowPeak canisters, I will only use MSR.

Regarding the actual stove for cold weather usage, get one that has a pre-heat tube and ability to use an inverted remote canister, like the MSR WindPro. Inverting the canister burns the liquid out of the can first and the pre-heat tube turns the liquid into a gas so it can be burned. Inverting a canister on a stove without a pre-heat tube just results in a big flare-up of yellow & orange flame. Don't do this inside a tent!

For essentially everything you'd ever want or need to know about stoves of any kind, please visit Hikin' Jim's blog at adventuresinstoving.blogspot.com

MSR Prototype Stove: Rare Footage

Never introduced, never available to the public, the Mountain Safety Research Vapore-Jet Prototype Stove was given to Special Forces in 2004, almost released, delayed for more testing, and then quickly disappeared from the media. My buddy snagged this one, brand new, from someone who had no idea what they were selling. It uses 'Capillary Force Vaporizer' technology & burns kerosene-based diesel fuel.

Stay tuned for more photos & info. For now, here's a teaser video...



And no, that's not a Titan kettle. It comes with it's own, specially designed, aluminum 1L pot.

Oh, and not to date this post, but did you see MSR is coming out with a liquid/canister remote fuel stove with a pre-heat tube?
It takes the WhisperLite and makes it a little more Universal... and cold weather friendly.

Revisiting the Stove Debate

Last time I talked stoves, I addressed the total weight of different types of stoves & how efficient each was in relation to its weight.
After some lingering thoughts worked themselves into more complete arguments, I'd like to talk about total weight vs. volume, or each stove's ability to boil water and melt snow in regards to its weight. For example, what stove would be best to bring on a solo fast & light hike, a group fast & light hike, alpine climb, etc.
To keep it simple, let's just stick to isobutane.
More specifically, let's try & solve my little dilemma of whether or not I should purchase a Jetboil Sol/Sol Ti to replace my MSR Reactor.

Total Weight & Volume:
Jetboil Sol   10.5 oz, 0.8L
Jetboil Sol Ti   8.5 oz, 0.8L
MSR Reactor   19 oz, 1.7L

Weight per Volume:
Jetboil Sol   13.1 oz/L
Jetboil Sol Ti   10.6 oz/L
MSR Reactor   11.1 oz/L

The Jetboil Sol Ti has the lowest weight per capacity, followed very closely by the MSR Reactor, at only 0.5 oz more per liter.

Any deal-breaking difference between the Sol Ti and the Reactor? YES.

Difference #1: The Sol Ti has only a 0.8L pot while the Reactor has a 1.7L pot. The Sol Ti would be great for solo use and fast & light adventures, but wouldn't provide enough water in one boil for two people cooking dinner, as most of the time, you need 0.5 liters of water for a meal. The Reactor has the upper hand when you're boiling water for two people and hot drinks or melting snow. I like its larger pot for the times it is necessary. Plus, all three stoves have micro-regulators, so there should be no difference in cold weather performance in regards to gas flow (maybe there is one in cold weather regarding the following point?)

Difference #2: I do not personally know through experience how the Jetboil stoves (in general) do in the wind, but this is what Jetboil said to me in an e-mail: 'Wind can sometimes be a bit of an issue with dispersing the flame and if powerful enough, causing the flame to go out as it doesn't have direct protection against it. Other than the metal shroud that covers the bottom of the cup and attaches to the burner. Placing your hands around that area can help to reduce the winds effect on the stove.'
The major difference I see between Jetboils and the Reactor is the stove to pot contact. On Jetboils, the 'windscreen' somewhat protects the flame and there is a heat exchanger, but on the Reactor, there is no exposed flame; it uses radiant heat. The pot has 100% contact with the stove head, capturing nearly all the heat under the pot and in the heat exchanger. It works so well, you can't really warm your hands next to the stove, as so little heat escapes (I might be nitpicking if I complain about this). Which stove would work better in the wind? I think it's pretty obvious the Reactor is the windy weather king. It's certainly proved its supremacy in all the places I've used it.

(Want to make your canister stove perform better in the wind? Go here.)

So, is there a big enough difference to make me buy a Jetboil Sol Ti, especially with it being on sale right now? Nope.
I'll stick with my Reactor, which has been my workhorse for the past three years.
Thank you, MSR.

Post-Publication Addendum:
My friend, Ti, says she has found the Jetboils (or isobutane in general) to be inoperable at -20F & colder.
You just can't keep the fuel warm enough, even if stuffed in your jacket or sleeping bag all day or night.

Hendrik has some great introductory reviews at his Hiking in Finland site:
Reactor first impressions, Reactor review, & Jetboil Sol Ti

An anonymous reader asked about putting the 1.8L Jetboil Sumo pot on a Sol stove... here's what I found:

Sumo 1.8L pot: 12.5 oz
Sol Ti 0.8L pot: 6.3 oz
Sol Ti stove kit: 8.5 oz

8.5 - 6.3 = 2.2 oz for just the stove**
12.5 + 2.2 = 14.7 oz for the Sumo pot & Sol stove (4.3 oz lighter than the Reactor)

Additional advantage: the Sol stove kit and Sumo pot are purchased separately, creating a versatile stove arsenal, with two different sized pots for different types of trips, unlike the Reactor.
However, I think the additional 4.3 oz for the Reactor is worth its weight for the wind-resistance.

** When I e-mailed Jetboil about the weight of a Sumo on a Sol stove, they said, 'Your methodology would be correct in determining an approximate system weight.'

I had the opportunity to take a peek at the Soto Muka at REI in Anchorage. Seems like a sweet stove.
A customer pressurized a full 24 oz fuel bottle, requiring 84 pumps... its only drawback.
Its quite a bit lighter than all other liquid fuel stoves, though. Might be worth purchasing, especially if you're not going to see 40 below.

Coal Wood Glitter: The Third Time's A Charm

I had an idea, I planned, I tried, and now I finished.

90 miles through the Alaska Range, this time with Ed Plumb & Ann Farris.
Day 1: Suntrana to Cody Creek via Healy Creek (27 mi) & 10 hrs of sleep
Day 2: Cody Creek to Edgar Creek  via the Wood River (25 mi) & 8 hrs of sleep
Day 3: Edgar Creek to McKinley Village, aka 'Glitter Gulch' (10 mi hiking & 28 mi packrafting).
          First vehicle I thumbed it to picked us up.

The Route:
About 95% of this route offers some sort of trail or path, whether it be ATV or game trails.
One 4500 ft pass and one 5400 ft pass. Lots of creek/river bed walking & thick brush (mostly alder & birch) in drainages up to 4000 feet.
The Yanert is swift glacial current, running at least 6 mph, with a top floating speed of 11 mph. It's mostly a class I-II float, with some hard & tight eddy lines that require precise paddling and a few class III bends and holes, almost all of which are avoidable.
I unintentionally danced with the Devil and ended up running two big wave trains, without a spray deck or PFD, that each led into a class III hole, but managed to stay dry & upright. Sorry Mom, but I guess I learned something from all those Roman Dial packrafting videos.

Trip Insight:
- It's a great route: walk past the old coal mines and up Healy Creek for 20-some miles, up & over Cody Pass & down Cody Creek to the Wood River, up it to Big Grizzly Creek & the pass to Edgar Creek, then follow Edgar Creek to the Yanert, float out the Yanert to Revine Creek (5 hrs) and hike back to the Parks Highway at McKinley Village. It's very straight-forward and easy to follow.
- As you can see in the video, we used the GPS a lot, but that's only because we forgot the maps in the truck. I also had a mental image burnt into my brain after two years of planning. We found that it's perfect for someone looking to 'go bigger' with their backcountry adventures, but still have some sort of path to follow and information about the route, with not too big of terrain and modest safety hazards.
- I typically don't eat that much during the day, but like a big meal at night. It replaces what I burned during the day and helps me sleep at night. But, if it's cold, windy, & wet, I need a lot more calories during the day.
- Ultralight is great, but if it's nasty weather, it may be best to either have extra time to wait it out or bring the extra food it will take (calorically) to keep on truckin'. Extra time might be nice to catch up on sleep or rest sore muscles/feet from all the mileage you probably were doing because you are going ultralight.
- I took my pack off three times each day and never sat down the first two days, until we made camp. We averaged between 2.5 & 3 mph hiking, depending on the brush intensity. Continuing to hike and not taking more than a few minute breaks was actually nicer than stopping and resting, as it kept my body in motion.
- I dipped a liter bottle in small creeks for water, without filtering, and found that every creek tastes different, depending on the rock and minerals deposited into the water. It kept me in touch with the environment in a way I've never experienced before.

The Gear:
19 lbs including boat & paddle, not including worn & consumables
Six Moon Designs Comet backpack (& 2 webbing straps to tie to packraft)
Marmot Hydrogen sleeping bag & torso size blue foam
Patagonia wool 2 zip-t & wool socks (for sleeping, in silnylon bag)
GoLite Shangri-La 3 & 6 Y-stakes (to sleep 3 people)
Ti pot, Cat stove, pot grabber, spoon, windscreen, & matches (to cook inside shelter)
Bear spray, knife, & firestarter
Rab eVent jacket & OR PacLite pants
Montbell Thermawrap Vest & Patagonia Nano Puff Hoody
Alpacka Yukon Yak (also to sleep on)
AquaBound Manta Ray paddle (also shelter support)

Gear Insight:
- Denatured alchohol is great, but up at 4500 feet on Big Grizzly Creek was the first time I've ever had problems with the cat stove. Even nestled behind some rocks, it took almost 10 lights before it stayed burning and boiled water. Every time I set the pot on the stove, it would go out. Sensitive to the wind?
- Having the liter bottle cinched to my backpack shoulder strap with an orange ski strap was fantastic. I stayed more hydrated than I ever have in my life, as the water was right there to drink and monitor how much I had or needed for the next stretch. If I was hiking along a creek, I'd dump it out and carry an empty bottle, as I could dip whenever I was thirsty.
- The Rab Latok Alpine Jacket with eVent fabric doubled as a wind & rain jacket. It was so breathable, I only took it off for one mile! While hiking into the driving rain, however, it did wet out, but conditions were pretty gnarly and I'm not disappointed, especially when I compare its performance to all the other waterproof/breathable fabrics I've used.
- We had to stop hiking the second night (in the driving rain) not because we were tired or it was late or too nasty of weather, but because my gloves were saturated and after three hours, my hands finally got too cold. Couple that with the conditions and time and it was a mighty fine opportunity to pitch the shelter and hit the hay. Take home message: bring shell gloves/mitts or a way to keep hands dry (& warm).
- The GoLite Shangri-La 3 slept all three of us with just enough space to sprawl out, except for the driving rain night, when we had to hunker in a little to keep away from the wet nylon. Plenty strong and storm-worthy.
- We slept on our packrafts, which created a huge dry area, allowing us to lay out gear and clothes next to our bags and keep it all dry. The 2011 boats are even bigger than previous models, with the long tail, and work really nicely.
- 100% humidity, being showered by dripping condensation all night, and a very wet insulated jacket couldn't wet-out my Marmot Hydrogen 30 degree down bag. While it was unsettling to see the clumpy balls of down when I got into the bag, it was completely dry by morning, while being warm all night.
- As nice as the 2011 Alpackas are to sleep on, they're equally bad to sit in. The boat has an overall narrower design, which smashed my hips to the point of pain during and after the float. Both feet were crammed in the bow, one in front of the other as there wasn't enough room to wedge them side by side. The narrow dimensions also make the boat slightly tippier side to side, compared to the previous model. However, the tail is amazing. As Roman pointed out, it completely prevents bandersnatching. If you have an old boat, send it in to Sheri and have a tail installed.
- I'm a hiker and I like to go light, so carrying 7-10 lbs of floating gear is not cool unless there's enough floating to make it worth while or the route just isn't possible without it. But, if I am going to carry a boat, etc, I'm taking the biggest boat I can, as they are so much more stable and float through skinny water better, plus being idyllically spacious. Sure, it weighs a little more, but so not as much as the whole floating gear compared to my basepack weight.
- Last trip, I carried my trekking poles the entire time. This time, I left them at home. Never once did I miss them, because in my hand, instead, was my DSLR. With my hands free, I took 1200 photos in three days and even had the camera put away for 4 hours during the driving rain and 6 hours the next day while packrafting. The DSLR allows me to get shots that are straight-up impossible to get with a point and shoot, plus the quality is far superior. And since it's in my hand all day long, it doesn't weigh down my pack.

As I learned last year when J.R. & I attempted this trip, I may be out of school, but the education continues.

Ultralight stove systems: What's the lightest?

It's three-thirty in the morning and in another three hours, I have to leave to go to the first day back at work in over five weeks.
What am I doing up so late??? Making a Microsoft Excel table that determines the efficiency of ultralight backpacking stove systems using various forms of fuel, in terms of total weight and fuel consumption per liters of water boiled.
What else is there to do?!?! (I had to get this off my mind, as I've been pondering it for over a year.)

You would not be the first person to make fun of me for things like this, involving ultralight backpacking gear, but please read on.

Let me set a couple things straight right off the bat...
1. Isobutane stoves need fuel canisters, which add an extra 3 oz of metal for the canister (excluding fuel) to the weight of the stove system.
2. I used a 1 oz (weight) plastic bottle to contain denatured alcohol. That weight was added, like the canister weight.
3. The weight of a Ziploc bag to contain Esbit fuel tabs is negligible, I think. Although, a ultralight extremist once told me that everything weighs something. 'If you hold it out, let go, and it hits the ground... it weighs something.'
4. For the stoves that do not come with their own pot (Soto, cat food can, & Vargo), I used the 5 oz weight of my Evernew 0.9L titanium pot (same pot Andrew Skurka uses).

The overall weight and efficiency of ultralight stove systems: (click on table to view larger image)

Results: (if I did the calculations correctly)
What does this chart tell us? The number of liters of water boiled per the weight of the stove, pot, and fuel container, i.e., each stove system's efficiency.
Almost always, only the final weight of the stove, pot, and fuel are addressed. But isn't overall efficiency important, too?
Other gear is chosen not only for weight, but also what is the intelligent decision or the lightest, most sensible option.

In this test, neither one Esbit tab nor two Coghlan's fuel tabs were able to bring 1L of water to a rolling boil before extinguishing. The water had bubbles and was close to boiling, but not rolling.

The Vargo Triad XE & Esbit fuel tab system and cat food can system with denatured alcohol are essentially the same weight for any duration.
At about two weeks, the Jetboil Sol titanium stove system becomes lighter than the Vargo Triad XE & Esbit tab system and cat can system with alcohol.    
The cat food can with denatured alcohol boiled 1L of water in 12 minutes at 65° F ambient temperature, whereas the fuel tab system was never able to bring 1L of water to a rolling boil.

Most efficient stove system:
The JetBoil Sol Ti is the most efficient stove system (in this test), not only in liters of water boiled per 100g of fuel, but also in relation to the entire weight of the stove system, as well, although the Soto micro-regulator, cat can/alcohol, & Vargo/Esbit fuel tab combo were not far behind. The Sol Ti boils almost double the amount of water per 100g of fuel compared to the Soto, but only weighs 29% more. Even though the alcohol & Esbit tabs boil less water per weight of fuel compared to isobutane, the low weight of the 'stove' for both makes up much of the difference. The isobutane scores are brought down by the 3 oz weight of the canister needed to contain the pressurized fuel.

Lightest Stove System:
The cat food can with denatured alcohol system is the lightest, most capable stove system in the test, staying very light in all durations and boiled water better than the fuel tab system. Definitely the ultralight choice in all but extreme weather conditions (maybe).

Disclaimers:
1. I tried to select some of the newest, lightest, and best designed stove systems available, as well as the most popular or best-tested. I feel this line-up is a good representation.
2. The JetBoil Sol Ti uses a 0.8L pot, while the MSR Reactor uses a 1.7L pot. This means the Jetboil should weigh slightly more (low pot volume = lower weight) and have a lower final ratio, while the MSR should weigh slightly less for this comparison (high pot volume = higher weight) and score higher in the final ratio. What effect does this have? It would probably bring the score of the JetBoil closer to the Soto, while the MSR would be potentially slightly better than the cat food can/denatured alcohol combo.
3. There is a large difference between the performance of the stoves used in this comparison, although I do not feel that it throws off the results, but, most importantly, changes the selection of the most applicable stove for each planned trip. For example, the cat food can stove is the lightest option, but the MSR Reactor's performance is the same in 40 mph winds as it is in an enclosed room, because it uses enclosed radiant heat instead of an open flame, which can be extinguished by wind or suffer from convective heat loss. This makes the Reactor perfect for exposed alpine bivies or river campsites, but far too heavy for protected forest campsites, where a lighter stove would perform just fine. What about ambient temperature? Isobutane sputters below freezing (below 20F for stoves with micro-regulators like the Soto, JetBoil, & MSR) and denatured alcohol and Esbit tabs throw off such low heat, they struggle to boil water in cold temperatures, although they can be more successful than isobutane, especially at elevation. And then consider the usage of your stove. Are you just boiling to rehydrate meals or will you be cooking?
Not to say that efficiency is the most important factor, but sometimes simplicity is a stronger element of function than design, kind of like a single-speed bike.
There have been many times I've found myself very happy that I carried the extra couple ounces of an isobutane stove, as I did not have to mess with a denatured alcohol set-up.

I did not set out to determine which stove was best in every situation, but like my archaic Sleeping Pad Selection Guide, I wanted to determine the most appropriate stove system for different conditions and user preferences.

One other thing I figured out in this process, although not nearly as cool or in-depth...
In Alaska, you almost have to use white gas stoves in the winter, when temps plummet to 50 below. Anyone who says they've used isobutane in 'winter' in Alaska definitely hit a nice weather window in March, or they were playing just outside of Alaska, in the hills around Anchorage.
So, I decided to tackle the question of what size MSR fuel bottle should I bring on my winter trip?
The 30 oz is 'so heavy' at 7.3 oz, but the 20 oz only weighs 5.25. But I'm only going out for a couple nights... I could get away with the 11 oz bottle, at 2.8 oz in weight. Do the math.
Fuel per weight ratios favor the 30 & 11 oz sizes over the 20, with the 30 being most efficient. Bring the big daddy for a full weekend trip or a few of them for a week, but take the small guy for overnighters. At 40 below zero, you definitely want to err in favor of extra fuel!
Anyone want to buy two 20 oz MSR fuel bottles???

Oh yeah, if any of this doesn't make sense... I'm sorry, but it's 3:30 am and I have to work in a few hours :)

Winter Gear

Imagine hiking in sub-zero windchills for ten miles, then post-holing three feet deep in snowshoes for three miles through the woods, to arrive at a camp site at dark and temps dropping to -15. You're exhausted, in need of calories and your warmest clothes, almost out of water, and need to set-up camp and melt snow for cooking and hydration. So, you do all this and as you light the stove, you realize the fuel pump isn't pressurizing because it's too cold. Uh-oh. That means the stove will barely work. This is where I said, 'Well, you can fix anything by sleeping with it,' in reference to cold weather camping and how most problems are associated with the extreme temperatures. A simple warming up will often fix it. Overnight in a sleeping bag is the method.
What did I learn from this? Pressurize your fuel bottle at home, before you leave for the trip and before you can have it in your sleeping bag the first night. If it doesn't pressurize more when you use it, at least it has some residual pressure from earlier, which it shouldn't have lost.

My old school MSR G Expedition stove has been proven to dominate its prodigy, the XGK. It roared, even at -35, and coupled well with my one gallon pot. For melting snow, size is everything. Although the G (or XGK) is the most reliable multi-fuel expedition stove on the market and has been to the summit of more high elevation mountains in the world than all other stoves combined, I might still opt for my MSR Dragonfly, as it uses the same burner, has a better stove-to-pot contact surface and support, and fits inside the one gallon pot, which the G does not, as it has a rigid fuel line (which I might look into replacing it with a flexible one). [Post-trip update: I made a mylar-covered bubble wrap cover to insulate the top of the pot, to increase heating efficiency as much as possible at extreme temps.]

The homemade GSI Fairshare mug food cozy helped cook 1,000 calories of Ramen, peanut butter, and sesame oil at 30 below. I cut the handle off for a sleeker profile and insulated it with mylar-covered bubble wrap. Also, bring a plastic/lexan spoon instead of titanium or aluminum so it doesn't freeze to your lips and tongue!

I brought two methods of keeping water warm: a one liter Thermos and a Powerade bottle in a Sea-to-Summit neoprene skin inside an OR water bottle parka. The Thermos kept water warm far longer than the bottle parka combo, but the weight difference is huge (1 lb). If I wouldn't have had the Thermos, I would have had ice in a bottle by the time I got to drinking the second liter. Plus, when I did drink the water out of the Thermos, it was hot! That was quite a pick-me-up at -20, after hiking 12 miles.

Snowshoes were the only reasonable means of travel over the windswept crust covering the ridges on our route, as skis would have had little edging ability and very little grip. In most conditions, the snowshoes worked fine, but were way too heavy to walk so far in (Northern Lites would be better). When we got down to treeline, where the snow is deposited, we trudged for three miles as we post-holed three feet deep, while wearing the snowshoes.
What did I learn? There is not an all-around good method for going across and through snow. All means of snow travel have their drawbacks and one must have a variety of means to get through it all. Snowshoes were ok for the ridges, but skis would have been better (and faster!) in the deep snow. I think I might look into a more versatile ski system: boots I can walk long distances in and waxless skis with steel edges.

Knowing I'd have to strap many things to my backpack and have versatile attachment options that must work in extreme temperatures, I brought five ski straps along. They worked flawlessly doing everything from holding down my pants to prevent snow from getting inside my boots to keeping my snowshoes secure on my backpack and holding together my ski poles for supporting the shelter. Stronger than nylon webbing straps and no plastic buckle to break, plus they grip surfaces much better and never loosen.

One thing I'm on the fence with - the GoLite Shangri-La 3, pictured at left. I have nothing but great things to say about it, except that it's hard to stake out in completely unconsolidated sugar snow, which is pretty common in Alaska, especially the colder it gets. This is when it's even more important to have a shelter that's easy to set up. I might get a Stephenson's Warmlite 2R, as it just needs to be pulled tight from end to end, instead of on six corners!

Thoughts from the Crest of the Alaska Range

On this last trip into the Alaska Range, I didn't bring a hat. A visor to shade the sun, but no hat. Not a light one, not a warm one. Instead, I used the hoods on my lightweight wool longsleeve baselayer hoody, wind jacket, insulated puff jacket, and rain jacket to keep my head warm and dry. It is super convenient because a hat needs to be either worn or stowed, while a hood is flipped on or off and is always there. Never once did I wish I had brought any sort of hat.

While I brought two trekking poles, I found myself carrying them the majority of the time and only using both for brief periods (uphill) or a specific instance, like stream crossing. In fact, they aggravated me more than anything, having to carry them for miles to have them ready if I wished, instead of stowing them in my pack. If I'm just going to pack them away, why not just leave them at home? When I did use the poles, I found one pole to be more than sufficient and actually preferable to two poles. The only time two were actually useful is when I was hiking very steep uphills and using the poles to catapult across streams. Maybe I'll just become a better hiker and guess what? My feet were already wet, so why bother trying to keep them dry? One pole. Decision made.

In heavy rains, a solid rain jacket is well worth its weight for comfort and dryness, although a super light shell that is truly waterproof and breathable can serve double duty as a shell and wind jacket, plus bug protection.

No matter what, bring two pair of wool socks. My one pair stayed wet for three days straight and neoprene river socks are not comfortable to sleep in.

Instead of bringing camp footwear, bring bread bags to slip over sleep socks to keep them dry when running out to pee in already wet shoes.

One shared sleeping bag is plenty large enough for a couple to share. I'd like to make a lightweight synthetic quilt for summer use. If sharing, use a bag rated to the temperatures you'll experience, as there is some inefficiency in sharing a bag versus zipping up and cinching down to blow hole size.

I cut the foam back support out of my GoLite Pinnacle, since I already use my light sleeping pad as back support. Turns out, it was a great idea. Weight saved and still just as comfortable.

Here's a thought... I've tried to cut nearly every single ounce off my hiking gear that is practical and still comfortable. Then, I throw in TEN POUNDS of packrafting gear. Hmmm... Maybe more thought regarding floating or crossing rivers for the route is necessary.

The denatured alcohol stove I made from a Fancy Feast cat food can boils two cups of water in five minutes or less and weighs almost nothing at 0.3 oz. Super simple and nothing to break. Thank you, Andrew Skurka!

A pair of super light long underwear bottoms is nice for sleeping and wearing if it's cold during the day and while packrafting on rainy days.

The long sleeves with thumb holes on my wool hoody worked well in keeping my hands warm in cool, damp, & windy weather, since I didn't bring gloves, either.

Loksaks are great for anything needing to stay dry, including TP, and are the lightest, reliable option.

Sharing is a great way to save weight and after having a group member lose a $100 knife and realizing I never even pulled mine out of my hipbelt pocket, it makes sense to share things between group members - like one knife.

The GoLite Hex 3 floorless shelter is great - in winds, rain, some bugs, etc. It's a little difficult to set up the hexagonal shape perfectly, but it offers a lot of interior space for spreading out gear and hanging out with the entire group in nasty weather. I've also yet to have any problems with mosquitoes in the floorless shelter, as they tend to stay up in the peak, where all the heat (and carbon dioxide concentration?) is. It can even be carefully set up with two paddles (shown above), allowing utilization of the entire area inside the shelter.

I use short Outdoor Research Flex-Tex gaiters to keep debris out of my sneakers. I see them as a necessity.

Beefy, durable trekking pants that can take abuse are so nice for bushwhacking and hiking in rocks, plus they tend to be wind resistant, coupling well with a wind jacket or double-duty light shell.

Spoons kick spork ass anyday. Period. Those teeth just don't clean up pots very well.

One large, main dry bag is all that's necessary for keeping gear dry, instead of messing with multiple bags and playing Tetris to fit them in to your backpack.

Using a superlight bivy helps keep your sleeping bag dry and allows a person to use a slightly lighter bag for the current temperatures and helps protect the sleeping bag from dirt, water, and physical abuse.

Last, but not least, nothing is better than a Nutty Bar covered in creamy peanut butter and Nutella. Not a Snickers, Whatchamacallit, or a Sindawg. Nothing.

The Education Continues...

So, the Coal, Wood, Glitter trip may not have worked out for various reasons as I'll explain below, but the time wasn't a complete flop. What JR & I learned in 4.5 days and 1500 miles of driving through Alaska is impressive, I think.
Here's my take on it all...

Before starting a big trip, do extensive research on the feasibility and safety of the route, including land ownership and activity (mining?), and talk to someone who’s done the route already and get their opinion and notes. Otherwise, do a scouting trip prior to the main trip, or just keep things simple according to what information is available.

Bikes are extremely beneficial to use for backcountry travel in nearly all mountainous environments, but they extremely complicate the trip to the point where they may not be practical for more than one night’s worth of travel, as they are very fragile and mechanically complicated. Breakages occur far too frequently for practical application of mountain bikes on extended backcountry travel, in my opinion. See Eric Parson's accounts of their Lost Coast, Wrangell Mountains, and 2010 AMWC trips, regarding the catastrophic failures they had. However, bikes were apparently built better back in the day when Roman Dial did his Hellbiking across the Alaska Range.

When going on a trip, plan for all possible types of recreation. For example, if going on a biking and packrafting trip, also bring hiking gear in case your plans change. On the attempted route, bikes proved to be impractical, but the route could have been hiked and packrafted in the time we had available. Unfortunately, we did not have quite the appropriate hiking gear to attempt the route without bikes, since we were originally planning on carrying all our gear on the bikes. This prevented the route from being accomplished, all together.

Packrafts were made for Alaskan rivers and backcountry travel. However, paddling on lakes without current for more than just a simple and short crossing is slow and strenuous, especially if there are headwinds, which is normally the case. Stick to current, mostly rivers, above class I, to make it interesting and appropriate for using a packraft.

Sleeping on packrafts allows for a simpler and more comfortable approach to packraft/raftpack camping, if executed properly. When sleeping on a packraft right side up (floating style), the raft should be inflated to 4-5 inflation bags worth of air to allow for a soft mattress and the highest amount of comfort. I used a Llama, although I am only 6' tall, and I slept very comfortably by laying inside the boat, with my head on the stern and feet propped up on the bow, almost similar to a hammock. Sleeping on the packraft upside down provides a soft, flat surface that is elevated off the ground, almost comparable to a quality cot. The raft should be deflated some (from full inflation) and lie flat on the ground when laying atop it (just soft enough to flatten out the upturned bow and stern). Remember that an inflated raft is more puncture resistant than a deflated raft used as a ground sheet. Be extremely cognizant of your campsite selection as to reduce the amount of abrasion on the raft as much as possible. Putting a sleeping pad on the floor greatly increases the thermal efficiency of the set-up and will allow more comfortable, longer lasting sleep in both raft scenarios. I could feel a significant difference between laying on the pad and off of it, where my feet happened to be. The two inflated packrafts were used inside of a GoLite Hex 3 shelter (one Llama & one Yak). Although it was tight, there was still enough room to set shoes, etc, between the rafts and have room for backpacks near the head and feet of the hexagonal shelter.

Sleeping bags are not necessary for travel during summer in Alaska’s backcountry. Clothing applicable to the current weather conditions is sufficient for sleeping when combined with a light bivy bag, in the proper shelter. We used our clothing, coupled with 6.5 oz ripstop/silnylon bivy bags, and slept on our packrafts under a GoLite Hex 3. The packrafts fit well in the hexagonal teepee shelter, which seemingly holds heat well. We were able to sleep for a full 8+ hours, most of which was almost too warm. Being too warm can pose problematic, though, as one would become damp from sweat and then cool far too much to remain comfortable. Sleeping bags, however, provide a great amount of comfort and security, which can also be lighter and more practical than sleeping in clothing only. After wearing clothing all day, in all weather conditions, the clothing can be damp and sleep can be challenging. We found the system of bringing just enough clothes for the conditions and a slightly lighter sleeping bag than appropriate for the conditions was the most effective and lightest technique when used together, as a sleeping system. This is the same findings and methodology that many adventurers on light and extended backcountry trips have agreed upon and found to be most effective.

Prior to going on an extended backcountry trip, test every piece of gear, system, and technique you will be using on the trip in a smaller-scale version of the same difficulty as the trip to be attempted. This is mandatory to evaluate the most practical and effective gear and techniques for accomplishing the goal to minimize problems and increase efficiency.

It has been commonly found that the standard u-shaped seat in packrafts puts pressure on the sciatic nerve in the hips/butt and causes legs to ‘fall asleep.’ I inflated a 2.5L platypus bag bottle and placed it in a drysack, strapped to the back/bottom of the u-shaped seat. This gave support from directly underneath my butt and decreased pressure on the sciatic nerve, completely eliminating the dead leg problem. Bottom line: I found that a flat or slightly contoured/flat seat is ten-fold more comfortable than the standard seat in packrafts and it eliminated the problem of my legs falling painfully asleep after only 45 minutes of paddling.

Sufficient rest/sleep is one of the most critical aspects of a trip to be able to perform at a competent and safe level, especially when in remote regions on a backcountry adventure.

Running a larger packraft than what is the ‘proper’ fit is very beneficial for increased flotation, stability, room, and I personally think the larger boats track better. However, one must adjust for the increased length by putting gear or an inflated dry bag under the deck in the bow or moving the seat forward and modifying the deck to compensate for the adjusted sitting position. Do this, and you'll be far better off than the standard fit model if you plan on running any larger whitewater. See Roman Dial's blog for modifications.

Being a resident of the Middle Tanana Valley in Interior Alaska, I’ve gotten used to the warm, dry weather and getting wet during a float, especially when day-boating, isn’t an issue, thus resulting in rain gear being sufficient in order to stay dry (at least to a degree). However, south of the Alaska Range (mostly around Anchorage and south onto the Kenai Peninsula), weather can often be cool and wet for days, plus much of the water is glacier-fed and cold. I’ve found this is where spray tops and dry suits would be beneficial to stay dry and comfortably warm.

Febreeze is a god-send for water shoes that go through the wet-dry process, which really can cause a nasty funk.

Denali National Park is apparently the only place in Alaska with a real population of brown or grizzly bears. I’ve seen some incredibly wild areas of Alaska, including the Kenai Peninsula, and Denali is the only place where I’ve seen a real habitation, although the salmon weren’t ‘running.’ I’d love to see otherwise, but have yet to.

An inflatable floor for the packraft is a huge advantage for running whitewater. After doing some shallow water butt-boating with and (unfortunately) without a 2.5 inch thick inflatable sleeping pad floor, I’ve come to love carrying the extra 11.5 oz for the benefits it offers. Not only does it stiffen and stabilize the boat, but it flattens the bottom of the boat and eliminates the sag created by your weight directly below the seat which can cause some serious dragging that is completely avoidable. Also, it raises you up in the boat, allowing for better vision on the water. This means a higher center of gravity, which is acceptable because it doesn’t give you the buried in the boat type feeling you get when only sitting on the stock inflatable seat. I like being up higher and feel more capable and responsive because of it. The inflatable floor principle is exactly why a flat-bottomed jet boat performs better than a v-hull in shallow water boating. Your packraft will be flatter & stiffer, with less drag & better visibility. Well worth the weight.

Fleece is awesome under a spray top, drysuit, or just rain gear for insulation. It’s soft, gives that under-the-covers type comfort, and retains its loft well, plus it’s fairly warm for its weight when layered under a waterproof layer. I’d much rather run a fleece under my spray top or drysuit than an ultralight, thin poly fill jacket, exclusively for the comfort, even if it is an ounce or two heaver. How much is that comfort worth to you? Only hiking and no boating? Then, I prefer to carry synthetic insulated jackets any day.

I took the handles off my titanium 1L pot and found it to be more user-friendly than with the handles on. The flip-out handles would often get in the way when packing and were more of a nuisance. The titanium loses heat incredibly fast and if just moving the pot from a fire or off the stove to the ground, handles are best left at home. Melting snow and pouring food, etc? Maybe think otherwise.

When trying to go fast and light, a butane stove is absolutely worth the weight for its sheer speed of use. While denatured alcohol ‘cat stoves’ are far simpler in design and fairly fast, plus super light, they are more finicky and complicated in their use, super susceptible to wind, and slower than butane, which is functionally simple in the can and burner, with not a whole lot to break or have problems with (above freezing). I like simplicity, but simplicity in function can be more important than simplicity in design, depending on the application. How often have you heard of a high-quality butane stove breaking or not working?

As a professional photographer, I know what good picture quality is and I’m quite the snob about it. I also know that a big and heavy SLR is best carried in a backpack, exactly where it can’t take photos. This is why I’ve come to love my new Sony Cybershot TX-5 because it’s waterproof and takes awesome quality photos, plus has amazing features that make it a true 2010 camera, unlike some of the other waterproofs that you’d swear were from 1998. Not only do I take way more photos with it, but at ¾” thick, I can store it in the front pocket of pants or napoleon pocket on a jacket, and also strap it to my helmet with a Gorillapod for taking 780p video while packrafting. Get one. You’ll love it.

This is what I've learned in less than one week of adventure travelling.

I may be out of school, but the education continues.