Caldera Ti Tri Inferno and the Bushbuddy

Hendrik over at Hiking in Finland has provided an excellent video on the operation of the Ti Tri Caldera Inferno with his Tibetan 1100 pot. Similarly this BPL.com review thread provides reviews of the Inferno.

I have used the Inferno stove on a recent 3 day trip as well as on 2, day walks. My overnight hiking meal routine involves a boil in the bag meal such as Real Turmat, soup and cup of tea (or 2) at night. For the mornings I need some hot water for coffee, so I heat no more than approximately a litre and a half a water a day. When I am hiking with a fuel stove, alcohol, esbit or gas I am always worried about how much fuel I am using and how much is left and usually as a result have spare fuel when I return home. The benefit of the wood stove is that you are only dependent on wood being available in the vicinity of your campsite, which is not an issue in Scandinavia, unless you are up high. (See The bearable lightness blog for a discussion of the use of the Bushbuddy above the treeline in Sweden). Hendriks review along with reviews at BPL.com support my positive experiences with the Inferno, it is efficient at boiling water quickly, it is easy to place wood in, the multi use aspect of the stove (wood, alcohol, esbit) provides the ideal arrangement for the hiker. I found that the fire took less than 5 minutes to become hot enough to place the pot on and in less than 10 minutes I had 800 ml of boiling water in my BPL.com 900 ml pot. Hendrik has reported times of 7.5 minutes for a litre which reflects my experiences.

The boiling times for the Bushbuddy maybe a little slower, but I have not done a side to side comparison to determine this. Importantly there is very little ash left over with the Inferno, a similar result will be found with the Bushbuddy.

The major differences between the 2 stoves are:
-the compactness of the Bushbuddy over the Inferno
– the ease of adding would to the inferno
– the coolness of the base on the Bushbuddy when compared to the inferno
– more assembly required on the inferno
– the Caldera is a multifuel cooking system

Comparing the weights of the Inferno and the Bushbuddy in use

In both cases I am assuming that I am using the same pot (BPL 900 ml.)

Ti Tri Caldera Inferno, Caldera, Ti base plate mesh and grid for inferno. Total weight (on my scales) is 116 gms

Bushbuddy Ultra weight 144 gms.

However, this is not the end of the story.

In use weights will normally be higher, in my case if using the Ti Tri Inferno I would also take the caddy to protect and hold the stove and the caddy weight is 80 gms.

The Inferno in use weight plus caddy is 196 gms

Whereas for the Bushbuddy I will need to take a cup and will use the pot or the freezer bag as a bowl the total in use weight with a FoldaCup is 169 gms.


In the morning I would not use a wood stove but rely on a small fuel stove, normally Esbit.

In the case of the Caldera I could take the Gramcracker for an extra 3 gms and would have a complete Ti Tri Caldera system for 199 gms. (lets call it 200 gms)

A second stove with the bushbuddy is a little more problematic, Hendrik has described making a small alcohol stove for his bushbuddy, however, I would prefer to use an esbit stove such as the HPS stove weighing 5 gms combined with some ti foil for a windshield weighing 8 gms. Providing a complete Bushbuddy system for 182 gms. Unless you are a diehard gram counter the difference between the two set ups (17 gms) is not worth worrying about.

So which is better? Neither really, I think it will come down to personal preference, they are both great wood stoves and will serve you well in the outdoors. Which will I be taking on my next trip? I am undecided at the moment and it ultimately depend on the type of weather expected.

This entry was posted in Gear, Stoves. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Caldera Ti Tri Inferno and the Bushbuddy

  1. Hendrik M says:

    An excellent post, Roger. I'll edit a link to it into my Ti-Tri post asap, the more information available for people the better!

  2. Hendrik M says:

    Its excellent to see your weights for your 900 pot. The weight for the 1100 pot are, excluding caddy, 157 g (232 g with caddy), 41 g more than yours. Size does matter, thus.My BushBuddy Ultra, on the other hand, is only 135 g đŸ˜€

  3. Thanks for the comments Hendrik, I think that the most positive aspect of these stoves is their use of wood with the consequential saving of fuel carried, especially for longer trips.My scales are digital kitchen scales so they are ideal for comparison purposes at home but may not reflect the true weight. I have a BPL 1100 pot which weighs (on my scales) 87 gms. So the Tibetan pot is a lot heavier, but your pot has handles, mine does not, and I would normally carry a MSR Litelifter at an extra 28 gms. so the difference narrows again. In the end it is about what works for the user.

  4. Holdfast says:

    Between you two and Gustav you guys are going to cost me more money! I'm looking forward to tying out these two systems with Hendrik but I think I know which way I'm leaning. I backpack alone quite often and thus only need a small pot of boiling water for my evening meal and maybe a cup of coffee in the morning. As the Ti-Tri is available for smaller pots I think this is where I'll be headed. Using your pot as half of the caddy and leaving the Inferno insert at home I reckon you could get a duel fuel stove system (Ti-Tri cone, Gram Cracker, half a caddy, 400ml Evernew mug and foil lid) down to around 163g. It'll be interesting to see everyone's take on these systems next year.

  5. Nice comparison. I'm seriously annoyed by the outrageous weight of the caddy though ;)There MUST be a lighter solution. A small dyneema bag maybe?

  6. Another question which becomes important above treeline and when it is wet is which stove consumes the least amount of fuel. The Bushbuddy should theoretically be more efficient because of the double-wall construction. Do you have any idea if this makes a difference?

  7. Holdfast, my apologies, I promise not write about gear for a little while. I like your idea regarding half a caddy, it would be good if it was a "snug fit" in the cup.Gustav, yes the caddy is the restriction on the sue of the Caldera in my view, but the strengths of the caldera can make the weight penalty worthwhile.Wood stoves above the tree line, assuming that wind protection can be found I would prefer to use the Bushbuddy (no evidence) just that I feel it would require less wood. Time will tell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s