Disadvantages of Cooking Systems

So what's wrong with our ideal kitchen? The first and foremost disadvantage is that many systems would be more accurately called "water boiling systems," as they are poorly suited for full-fledged cooking. Minimalist extremists who can survive for forty years on freeze-dried food are quite satisfied with this. In water boiling mode, a 100-gram gas canister lasts one or two travelers five days or even longer. When purchasing a system, clarify these nuances with the sales consultant.

However, many tourists want to cook not only economically but also fully, and for this, high narrow "flasks," "no" flame strength adjustment, and the possibility of the heat exchanger peeling off (in some cases) are not very appealing. It should be noted that most systems allow you to replace the included container with any pot that suits you, thus solving one of the problems.

As we can see, the container has become lower and wider, "closer to the people," and the manufacturer assures us of unprecedented smoothness in flame adjustment.

Weight.
The heat exchanger and wind protection often make systems heavier compared to a standard burner + pot set. Nevertheless, the use of modern lightweight materials minimizes this difference, usually amounting to a couple of hundred grams. Those who do not accept compromises in terms of weight should be prepared to pay a hefty sum for products with the sacred Ti prefix on the packaging. The use of titanium allows for models with a system weight of 240 g (without a canister, JETBOIL Sol Titanium 0.8L). For extreme lightweight enthusiasts, this is certainly a terrible figure, but it should satisfy many.
Price. In most cases, integrated cooking systems shamelessly ignore the principle of "bulk is cheaper" and are priced higher or significantly higher than similar standalone products with the same functionality. You pay for convenience, the congruence of components relative to each other, and, of course, for the concept as a whole. Not long ago, price was a stumbling block for many enthusiastic tourists wishing to own such a device.

What has changed now? Firstly, for those contemplating "is it for me or not," or simply constrained by finances, some companies are releasing budget models with somewhat reduced functionality, but essentially no worse than their more expensive counterparts. A classic example is the JETBOIL ZIP 0.8L model. Lightweight and reliable, made in the currently fashionable style of functional minimalism, it is available at retail for just over a hundred dollars. The second option is that since these products have been on the market for quite some time, you can easily find a used version for a reasonable price. The third option is to buy a product from a budget manufacturer. In our market, there is a well-known company called FIRE MAPLE. It has already established a good reputation for its cookware and cooking accessories. With acceptable quality, this manufacturer's products are significantly more affordable than those from the "giants."

Conclusions.
Of course, the main conclusions can only be drawn by oneself, ideally after using what is being discussed. After reading this article, I think you will no longer succumb to rumors that the systems in question are something extraordinary, ultra-technological, and unique.

Such fuel savings can be achieved by purchasing all the "winning" technologies in kitchen gadgets separately and forming a complex on your own. Of course, such a complex cannot be transported and hung in a working state, but otherwise, the functionality will be similar. But is it worth reinventing the wheel when a ready-made solution is already on the shelf, with various designs offering a wide range of choices? Humans are inherently quite lazy creatures... isn't this what drives the sales of integrated cooking systems to grow year after year?

Author of the article: Sergey Lakhotsky.

Energy Efficiency of Tourist Cooking Systems