Cycling UK Forum

pjclinch wrote:

Marco Panettone wrote:And my Hilleberg Rogen in Argentina earlier this year.

Marco, just in case my lottery ticket comes up trumps and I can afford another Hille, what do you think of the Rogen, and how do you think it would do with two (assuming you were using it solo there)?

What I'd really like Hille to make is a two-sided Akto/Enan. Enough room for two and a porch/door each, but just the single pole to save some weight and bulk. I have asked, but no sign of one yet!

Pete.

I really like it and think it's a great alternative to the Soulo for warmer weather where the Soulo with just the one door and not much airflow could get a bit too hot for my liking. I also like the space of a two man tent after the Soulo as I can fit a lot more gear inside both the tent and the two enormous vestibules.

What I don't like after using the Soulo for a year is the fact the Rogen uses pole sleeves instead of the clip system of the Soulo so I always find sliding the poles out without them coming apart to be a bit of a faff in the morning. It's no big deal and I'm used to it now but unclipping was just so much easier when I had the Soulo and I understand their reasoning for doing it if they're trying to keep weight down.

The standard pegs are also an area where they've gone for weight saving and are fine for things like a campsite with perfect lawn pitches but not so great on the Nullarbor Plain in Australia where the ground is rock hard so after bending a few pegs I've replaced them with some much sturdier Coleman tent stakes but again these have taken a bit of a battering in Chile, Bolivia & Argentina so now I'm on the hunt for something even stronger!

The other thing I've noticed after the Soulo is that the Rogen needs a lot more space to pitch due to the two large vestibules so whereas before I could squeeze the Soulo in anywhere I do have to be a lot more picky when choosing a pitch, especially when I'm trying to squeeze it in amongst the bushes like in the picture below.



Big enough for two? Depends how well you know the other person I suppose! I'd share with a mate in an emergency like a broken tent in a storm but would I want to do it long term? Not really. Travelling as a couple would be fine for shorter trips but I'd still be considering the n+1 rule and get a 3 man for long trips if there are two of you.

My Hilleberg Soulo crossing the Kazakh steppe in September 2012.



And in Kazakhstan again in December the same year. -20C this time around though. Brrrr!



And my Hilleberg Rogen in Argentina earlier this year.

My Condor Heritage in China.

Less of a full on blog with 3,000 word entries that no-one but my mum reads but I do have a public page on Facebook all about my round the world ride. I'm two years into it so far and have about another 20 months to go.

See below for the link.

It's not well publicised but if you're a YHA member and are travelling by bike you get 25% off under the Low Carbon Traveller scheme. If you're not already a member you can join the YHA once you get to NZ and even get 25% off membership at the first YHA you arrive at by bike.

https://www.yha.co.nz/membership/specia ... traveller/

Stating the obvious I know but it can be baking hot on the coast but if you cross any of the passes on the South Island (Arthur's, Lewis etc.) don't be surprised if it's snowing, even in the middle of summer!

I've done both but did all three ascents of Ventoux on a carbon road bike and the Tourmalet on a lightly loaded touring bike so it's difficult to compare like for like.

Ventoux seemed to have steeper gradients and the Tourmalet seemed to go on forever but the gradient was never taxing but this could all be down to gearing of course!

I used 247 Insurance for an 18 month policy which was the cheapest I could find at the time and they cover cycle touring as standard.

http://www.247travelinsurance.co.uk/bac ... -longstay/

Now all I need to do is find a similar policy but starting outside the UK so I can ride back home....

Mattie wrote:

johnb wrote:
It actually does work while the bottle is at the full marked capacity, that's the way my bottle was last night when I timed it for Marco.

Glad to hear it works when full, I was having a few doubts !

See attached picture. I suppose the feeder pipe should be pointing upwards when looking at the OFF position on the valve. Mine took a bit of twisting to make sure it pointed upwards.

Have only used this so far to test that the stove works and have not had it long, so not that experienced with it. I have run kerosene in it, which seems to run fine.

[url][/url]

I'd put more of a bend on that pipe if I were you Mattie so that the tip of the pipe is touching the side of the bottle or it won't pick up any fuel when the level gets low and there won't be much of an air gap to shut it down when it's nearly full. Take a look at mine & johnb's pictures earlier to see what I mean.

I've had some progress this evening but I'm even more confused now than when it just wouldn't go out.

By removing the brass tip and fuel filter from the end of the pick-up pipe, it works exactly as expected and goes out in about 30-40 seconds after flipping the bottle and another 30 seconds for the air to stop hissing out. Great I thought.

However.... when I put these back to try again, the stove remained on until I lifted the top of the bottle so it was angled at about 45 degrees upwards ('off' facing up) then went off almost immediately and the air stopped hissing after about 10 seconds. The fuel is only about half full by now so the whole of the pick-up pipe would have been out of the paraffin, as would the top of the pump assembly.

This kind of points to a tiny leak around the top of the pipe where it joins the lid and the paraffin / air is taking the path of least resistance depending on whether the fuel filter is fitted or not. Does anyone think this is plausible?

I'll see what Optimus have to say.

Edwards wrote:Have a look around the top of the pump unit and the fill tubes for anywhere that fuel can leak into the fill tube.

Thanks, that's good advice. I can't find any leaks though.

I'm wondering if I need more pressure in the system to force the fuel through quicker. Hmmm....

Thanks. I'd just opened that exact page a moment ago as it happens. Let's see what they say....

johnb wrote:Marco, here are a few pics that you may get an idea of what angle your tube works at. This tube is not modified or bent it is as it came from the factory.

I don't think the angle's the problem as I've got it up against the side of the bottle like you have. At the moment the bottle's only half full so in theory the fuel level should be roughly along the centre line of the pump with the fuel pick-up well clear of the paraffin.

Can I ask what fuel you're all using?

I'm running mine on paraffin so whether that makes any difference I've no idea but I've adjusted the fuel pick-up to be against the side of the bottle so that it's at the top when the bottle's in the off position and the bottle is only half full so there's no way the pick-up is submerged when I flip the bottle over but having just tested it again it still took more than 15 minutes at a roaring flame before I gave up and closed it off manually.

Well at least you've given me a target to aim for now.

I'll have a play about with it tomorrow and see if I can get more of a bend on the fuel pick up pipe so it sits against the side of the bottle which I don't think it's doing at the moment.

To shut down, all I'm doing is flipping the bottle and waiting for the flame to die out but the time it takes is nothing like the time quoted.