MSR: Pocket Rocket VS Pocket Rocket 2

[@bodang158]

Currently shopping for my 1st backpacking stove. This was super helpful. Thank you!

[@camojoe83]

Nothin like the jujitsu theme coming on in the background while you're cuttin up cans to build stoves.. Gets me all pumped up.

[@Evan-gz3cf]

Sweet test. Illustrates very well that if you have the first version you got the right version. This is good because people can be happy with what they have and use it forever. I think that’s the best kind of gear - every time you look at it all of the good memories come right along with it. Thanks for posting.

[@snakeplisken5727]

Great test. I have the old one. Good to know it's still on top. Thanks.

[@paulademille2766]

Thanks wanted to know which one to buy and you helped me decide, but now a deluxe one came out so now have to decide between the original and the deluxe. great videos thanks for sharing.

[@linklesstennessee2078]

Good test original for sure like the way the legs fold easier and boiled quicker

[@bruin4937]

Good comparison, thanks for doing it! I also didn't think the orig. would be more efficient, but yep it is! So, you can save on fuel with the orig., too. Might have to buy the original! Thanks again!

[@MDKDAF]

Really late to commenting on this video but I had the original pocket rocket which stopped working for me and I replaced it with the pocket rocket 2. That worked great until this summer when i accidentally knocked it over while camping and bent one of the pot supports and loosened the two small screws that hold the shaft to the base (right where the red MSR Lindell valve connection meets the silver stainless steel). The rest of the trip it was a bit sketchy to use but since tightening everything back up and straightening the legs in a vice all is good again and it works fine. It felt very flimsy to me after this (the stove fell over, not off a cliff) and although I have used it on a few more trips I have recently bought a whisperlite international. I am on the fence as to which I will take backpacking, but I feel like the more solidly built stove is the whisperlite. It is a lot heavier than the PR2, but I am doing my best to stop worrying about ultra-light and moving towards some items that are more reliable. What are your thoughts on backpacking with the whisperlite? Thanks!

[@danielgrenier3288]

This was fun to watch! I come away with you reinforcing my thoughts that MSR makes great gear. The consumer wins regardless of stove version. ...and beyond quick water boil times, both stoves are capable of doing actual cooking given the output control. Thanks, Jiujitsu2000, for sharing this information in such a fun manner! Fantastic!

[@jiujitsu2000]

Thank you so much this video was fun to do in the results kind of surprised me

[@redoak3809]

Chitty Customer Service

[@danielcharbonneau222]

It looks like the Pocket Rocket 2 has a much better pot support then the original Pocket Rocket. It looked more stable when you were placing the larger pot on the Pocket Rocket 2. As for the boil test it looks like the original Pocket Rocket puts out more BTUs. If I had extra cash I think I would buy the original Pocket Rocket. Good comparison and video.

[@ahmedpp3112]

How Mach I’m need like thes

[@chrisharris7205]

He actually forgot to open the pot supports fully on the original...the don't open as wide as the 2, but certainly wider and more level than shown here..

[@AlexZ-lc6nl]

I disagree, the PR2 boiled first.

[@danielcharbonneau222]

@@AlexZ-lc6nl 8:41 test #1 shows the original pocket rocket boiled first, not the new pocket rocket two. At 16:10 test #2 shows the original pocket rocket boiled first, not the new pocket rocket two. Sorry you should re watch the video. The older pocket rocket stove wins the race both times.

[@FirstLast-ml7yf]

I think the PR1 has more robust pot supports and less finicky.

[@joaquin-jacknava2696]

Old school for the win. The old one I believe has better flame control and is quiter. I pulled both of mine out and the old is much quieter. The legs are real easy to pull out than the pocket 2. Do you know anything about a SIGG FireJet Stove

[@vicguempel7851]

The older one came through, tried & true. Good video, JJ2K...

[@Sticky745]

Very good comparison, been wanting to get one of these stoves I just couldn’t decide which one, I think you helped me make that decision 👍👍

[@bhunter3850]

Thanks for the testing and reviews!

[@dag4321]

You should try a comparison between the two in wind, or using a small fan. I don't own the deluxe but have a Soto Amicus and Soto Windmaster (which the deluxe seems to have copied) and these stoves really blow away others in windy conditions. The flame is protected inside the burner and the pot supports are very close to the burner which gives good wind resistance. I bet the deluxe would blow away the pocket rocket 2 in wind.

[@LeeRalph100]

Good test! Shows that sometimes newer is not better!! Thanks for the test!

[@azclaimjumper]

Right at the end when the canisters were weighed, the PR2 canister weighed MORE which tells me the PR2 is more fuel-efficient. In my mind, MSR accomplished 2 improvements in the PR2, stronger supportive legs/arms & it seems to be more fuel efficient. 2 EXCELLENT reasons for buying the newer PR 2 instead of the gas hog PR Original.

[@johnmclean5957]

Good test. I am not really concerned with super fast boil times. I look for reliability and fuel economy

[@azclaimjumper]

I AGREE with you 100%. The PR2 canister weighed more, which means it used less fuel. Sure, it took a little longer, but it burned LESS fuel than the Original PR.

[@FirstLast-ml7yf]

Looks like I will hang onto my PR 1. The pot supports look more robust and less frustrating to deploy. And less likely to degrade over time like the BRS3000 titanium micro which has failed me in the pot support dept. and has similar design to the PR2.

[@cuylarHD]

A couple of thoughts I have. 1. I never boil water on full throttle flame. It’s much less efficient than med-high. 2. I wouldn’t have expected a smaller burning head to outperform a larger one. The “2” and the original are both rated/marketed at 8,200btu. So I can’t account for any difference other than that the wider head more efficiently transferred the heat to the water. 3. The smaller packing size makes nesting the “2” in a solo pot easier and more room is leftover for other stuff. That’s all, just observations

[@Evan-gz3cf]

cuylarHD Good points and well put!

[@r.w.7232]

True. Between the two, the newer version is the one to get

[@gac231]

Nice test thanks, sorry the reward is more suggestions: I wonder if you could weight the can/burner assembly just before and after the boil test? I find a couple of minute differences may not matter as much as burn efficiency if you're on the trail for several days.

[@turbonium100]

Great video, thanks. Where the PR1 gets water to temp quicker, the run time was longer on the PR2...and had more gas at the end. So would you choose the PR2 as you have to carry less gas on a long trip? Short trip the PR1??? It would appear MSR have made this lighter and more efficient. Once again, thanks for the video.

[@ManLand]

WOW I just did a quick test with my Optimus...it's super fast but boy did I just burn up some expensive fuel...lol

[@Okiehound]

Great test. How do they compare regarding fuel consumption? Clearly the new version is a bit slower but if it uses less fuel overall I'd be okay waiting a little longer to save on fuel. If you are actually having to wait longer and actually having to burn through more fuel, that would be very disappointing.

[@thebrizzy]

The same amount of fuel will produce the same amount of heat. The difference comes down to the width of the flame in relation to the width of the pot. The better it matches the more efficient.

[@AOKUrbanHomestead1]

Another awesome video. Thanks for sharing

[@spitimalamati]

Because the two burners were close to each other, when you turned off/down the original, it stopped assist-heating the PR-2 pot. Hence, the original is faster, but the PR-2 is not as slow as your test indicated.

[@mightylaidlow1]

That's just crazy talk. They both benefited from the residual heat of each other so it's a wash.

[@ref6122]

The unorthodox way the pot supports fold up on the newer version enable it to fit in my kettle with the gas canister.The prongs on the old version really stick out too much.Otherwise its perfect.

[@Kostas_B]

I have the Original and i am very happy... Its few seconds faster from Pocker Rocket 2 but that means nothing for me.. The difference is to the legs and stability... thats why i will not change the Original!

[@randystrom2163]

Thx for the test. I have the old school one and love the ease of deployment and boil rate vs the gen 2. But, the pot support caught my eye and thought that an important difference in considering gen 2 over the old school rocket too. So... what was that diameter size difference with old school vs the gen 2? Seems about 1/4" at the most.

[@I..cast..fireball]

Gen one pot supports are better because they don't fricken collapse on you when the rivet gets a bit loose.

[@oldyooper28]

Great comparison! Thanks!

[@samsworldofrations6996]

Great comparison of a super product 👍

[@RocklandRednecks]

Whats your distance above sea level Jiujitsu? Ive always wondered when watching your boil tests. Cheers

[@jiujitsu2000]

I live in Winslow Arizona in my elevation is 4850

[@chiefkirk]

Good review pal. Thanks for sharing.

[@lettingthebearout7528]

What about stability? The original appears to have pointed supports and little surface contact with the pots.

[@santamulligan676]

Hang on to the old fella

[@ManLand]

The original Is The Boss! Yet I will not take anything away from the contender with a smaller burner...the difference is clearly in the size of the target...larger pots tell the difference.

[@jiujitsu2000]

This was a really fun video to do in the results surprised me!

[@garethcraddock9971]

I'll be keeping the original, then... Also, although slightly bigger, it's a better shape for standing up in storage/bagging and then retrieving...

[@rogerkomula8057]

Could you do one where you don't have unequal flames for the first minute, Jethro?

[@jakeroadtonowhere4070]

it looks like the concentrated more on the weight of the new one instead of performance.,people obsessed with the weight.,of items wow how long that took.,imagine if it is outdoors

[@stuartboyd6340]

The size and stability would be the only thing I would buy the 2 for , I will stay with my 1 as I only make brews and instant porridge, ps other tests usually use a lid on the pots

[@I..cast..fireball]

The 2 pot supports can swing down at the worst moment. Orig is much more robust

[@halfdollar86]

Hmmm a portable Bunsen burner. Prolly could literally just buy Bunsen burner and stand cheaper and be close to as compact. Just s thought. Not this cool though

[@Thereal111t]

There’s sooo many variables. I think you did a good job at a scientific test. I think you hit it at the end with the lumens/run time analogy. A stove that is more miserly on fuel will boil slower. It’s pretty obvious when you compare unlike stoves. What if I run the main burner on my coleman 413g for thirty minutes versus a half hour of my svea123? Which one will boil two cups faster? So there’s that. You noted at the beginning that the diameter of old burner head is larger. On a burner of this typethat May well equate to more fuel flow or more efficient fuel air mixing. Let me ask you a question about the new one. Did the pot support seem more rigid under the heavier load of the quart boil test? One of the issues I’ve heard mentioned regarding the original is flexing of the supports under a heavy load. This is due mainly to the length and thinness of the original supports.

[@jiujitsu2000]

Thank you for stopping buy and my friend! I always love reading your comments from a fellow stove person and I love your channel too. The pot supports on the newer stove are definitely stronger without a doubt and even though the boil times aren't as good I find myself taking the newer stove out more often

[@KaylynnStrain]

hot stuff !!!!

[@scampster]

Review the deluxe!

[@jiujitsu2000]

It's coming!!

[@xenaguy01]

1:55 I see one advantage the II has over the original, I don't know yet if you will mention it. The original's lid is not attached, while the II model's is. That means that I woud lose the lid to my PR case the second or third time I used it, while I would still have the lid to the II model after several years of use. 9:25 I kind of expected the older stove to win, simply because the burner has nearly double the surface area of the newer burner. 15:15 I see more bubbles rising from the original. I'd say it's ahead at this point. 15:50 I'm awfully disappointed, seeing as how it's 5 minutes in, and both advertise "three and a half minutes to boil 1L of water." The original was nearly double that number, and the II model actually was double. Shouldn't they both have done better with a wide-bottom pot? 18:10 I'm not calling 30 seconds for 2 cups or one minute for a quart a significant difference. Neither is the half-ounce difference in weight. Nor is the size of the packaging. Both are too bulky to fit in a pocket. The fuel usage, however is. It would have been nice to see the canisters weighed before the test. But it seems like the original boiled faster, while using less fuel.

[@emptybinbag]

I've had a pocket rocket for at least 10 years and used it on all camping and backpacking trips and has never let me down. Also I have never lost the lid. Don't see how you can.Do you lose the lid from a nalgene bottle or any drinks cannister?

[@xenaguy01]

@@emptybinbag No, but I've lost the lid to a 12oz coke bottle that I used to carry alcohol in. That's what made me break down and buy a $4.00 8oz squeeze bottle. lol

[@bernhardneuschitzer2350]

Die somebody check gas consumption for boilin water full speed and economic? Regards from Austria

[@therz0n]

BRS is also good

[@gerald4nomads]

I wish I could get the original one, I had to settle for the jetboil mighty mo because the original one is no longer available anymore.

[@I..cast..fireball]

Ebay bro. I've purchased a few new in box that people never used.

[@swedishvikingwolf]

99% of the world using metric