no stove

[JAK]

I'm thinking I could use my hiking staff for that also, but there are lots of sticks around also. Still with a smallish fire for just a 1 litre pot or 500ml mug, the rocks also help to allow for a smaller more efficient fire. I gotta try the dingle stick sometime though, especially in winter. A hanging hobo would be kind of neat also, or a hanging lantern that also heats tea, or at least keeps it warm.

[Hikes in Rain]

The rocks also help concentrate the fire, and radiate heat upward instead of out to the side, for a smaller fire, as you said. Downside, of course, is you scorch rocks, letting everyone know a fire was there. Not an issue with an existing fire pit, of course. And I can never find three rocks the right size, either. Usually, my pot tips one way or the other. So, I concentrate the fire with rocks over the dingle stick.

[Kanati]

[quote=Mags;852217]Exactly. A fire in the low desert or alpine terrain would be...interesting.


True story. I caught the ground on fire in MT once and thought I would never get it put out. Finally had to dig it out and throw it in the creek.

[jersey joe]

I wonder what percent of AT thru hikers complete their hike without a stove...i'd guess a very small percentage.

[Mags]

I wonder what percent of AT thru hikers complete their hike without a stove...i'd guess a very small percentage.

My guess the "no stove" crowd is small regardless.

I am giving it an extended workout next month in Canada. We'll see how it goes.

[jersey joe]

My guess the "no stove" crowd is small regardless.

I am giving it an extended workout next month in Canada. We'll see how it goes.

Bring back another calorie chart by food...that was pretty cool.

[LaurieAnn]

My guess the "no stove" crowd is small regardless.

I am giving it an extended workout next month in Canada. We'll see how it goes.

hey Mags... what part of our fair country are you hiking in? (and my apologies if you already mentioned it... I must have missed it)

[astrogirl]

I wonder what percent of AT thru hikers complete their hike without a stove...i'd guess a very small percentage.

Well, it's not like you get a medal for it or extra mileage credit.

[garlic08]

I wonder what percent of AT thru hikers complete their hike without a stove...i'd guess a very small percentage.

I met nearly a dozen on the AT last year, which is way more than I expected. I figured it would be nearly unheard-of. But definitely in the low single digits, less than 5% of those I talked to about it or camped with. Quite a few more said they'd definitely go stoveless except they need their coffee.

I met two guys carrying motorcycle helmets on the AT, so I can say that at least five times more people go stoveless than carry motorcycle helmets. Is that significant?

[Waynesboro]

I met two guys carrying motorcycle helmets on the AT, so I can say that at least five times more people go stoveless than carry motorcycle helmets.

Did you ask them why they carried helmets? It got me curious.

I think that the kind of food that doesn't require heating would get old fairly quickly for me. Carrying a stove doesn't seem like enough of an inconvenience to make giving up hot food worthwhile.

Greg

[garlic08]

Did you ask them why they carried helmets? It got me curious.

I think that the kind of food that doesn't require heating would get old fairly quickly for me. Carrying a stove doesn't seem like enough of an inconvenience to make giving up hot food worthwhile.

Greg

Yeah, they rode bikes to a nearby TH and didn't want to risk leaving the helmets. Funny sight, though.

I felt the same about cookless until I tried it. I assumed there'd be practically zero variety. Now I feel the opposite, when I think about the food I used to cook-basically carbs'n'sauce packages--pretty uniformly gluey, tasteless, messy, and salty. I guess I wasn't a very good trail cook, and I don't miss it at all.

[Waynesboro]

I felt the same about cookless until I tried it. I assumed there'd be practically zero variety. Now I feel the opposite, when I think about the food I used to cook-basically carbs'n'sauce packages--pretty uniformly gluey, tasteless, messy, and salty. I guess I wasn't a very good trail cook, and I don't miss it at all.

A lifetime habit of old-fashioned oatmeal for breakfast would be hard for me to break. It would be more that I don't WANT to break the habit, rather than being addicted to it. Oatmeal keeps life flowing smoothly, if you get my meaning.

Then, there's tea... I like a hot cup of tea before bedtime.

That being said, I'm a pretty rugged camper. Two days without food is my normal camping weekend. I can go without a stove if I have to, but won't do it without a good reason.

Greg

[Mags]

hey Mags... what part of our fair country are you hiking in? (and my apologies if you already mentioned it... I must have missed it)

Along the Canadian portion of the Continental Divide. Waterton to Robson:

http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.ph...ide-trail.html

The route semi-officially ends in Kakwa PP, but most GDT thru-hikers (less than 15 that I know of!) end at Robson for logistic reasons. It was the original ending, makes a great finish and is a bit easier to get out of the Kakwa (to put it mildly). The only way to get to Kakwa is apprently a very rutted 85km/52mile 4WD road that gets little traffic. THEN once you get to the town at the end of this road, you have to hitch to another town that has bus service to Jasper. Or I can charter a helicopter to Jasper. Either way, no thanks!

To make this thread related: I am going no stove on this route for the following reasons:

• From what other GDT hikers told me, the gasoline in that part of Canada (along and near the divide), already has the equivalent of HEET in it. I hear it gets cold up there? So in the mainly small places where I am resupplying, I doubt I can get HEET or its equivalent for an alcohol stove easily
• Canisters are light and convenient. But, again, I am going through small towns for the most part. I'd rather not carry a bunch of canisters. Otherwise what is the point of the weight savings vs. white gas stoves?
• I am sure I can get white gas (or, more likely auto gas) anywhere. But, quite frankly, I'd rather not take even a "lightweight" Simmerlight with the required metal fuel bottle. That's 11.5 oz total for the stove and an 11oz fuel bottle. (not counting the fuel). That's a lot of weight just so I can have one hot meal a day.
• Finally, because I am going through (mainly) small towns, I know I can always gett peanut butter, tuna, cracker and the very basics at worse.

I'm a minamlist (dirt bagger!) more than a lightweight backpacker. The no futz, easy resupply and simple menus appeal to me.

I don't claim NO STOVE is the best. But, the more I think about it, the more I like it for my style of hiking. Like all choices, it involves compromises..but it is what works for me. As always, a tip of my salt-encrusted boonie hat to Garlic and Pickle for showing me the utility of this idea during our AZT trip.



On "social trips", I'll still bring a stove. Why not? On long, solo hikes, not so much.

Bring back another calorie chart by food...that was pretty cool.

Heh..we'll see. I am not going to lie, it was a big PITA to do that.

[LaurieAnn]

Sounds amazing... hey when you get back I'd like to talk with you more about your trip and how it went stoveless. This is something I am somewhat fascinated with and I can totally see the benefit when soloing. Great thread!

[Lyle]

For wood burners, this is a great option http://www.zzstove.com/mcart/

While I haven't gear tested it yet there is a new stove out called the Vital Stove by Eureka!

http://www.eurekatentscanada.com/pro...ype=6&prod=433

Anyway - in some areas this could work well and would reduce the fuel weight.

On my hike on the KEK last month I had the opportunity to compare these two stoves side by side, literally, for five days.

Our meals were being cooked on a Sierra Stove (modified with a larger base) for our entire trip on the Superior, Border Route and KEK. Another hiker joined us the last five days on the KEK portion and was using a Vital stove.

My impression was:

The stoves worked very much the same, both put out an amazing amount of heat, even when burning wet wood. The Vital seemed to use somewhat less fuel, but that may not be a valid assessment, it was cooking for only one while the Sierra was cooking for four.

Sierra Stove is taller and less stable without adding a base. It is also noisy compared to the Vital Stove. The Vital Stove is a much lower and thus more stable design.

The Sierra Stove has a LONG track record, the one on our trip was one of the originals, very well used. I was impressed with the good battery life, a concern I'd had about using these stoves.

The Sierra Stove is lighter, but the Vital Stove packs more compactly.

I will probably get one of these to experiment with, not sure which. Maybe I'll start out with a home made.

[jersey joe]

I met nearly a dozen on the AT last year, which is way more than I expected. I figured it would be nearly unheard-of. But definitely in the low single digits, less than 5% of those I talked to about it or camped with. Quite a few more said they'd definitely go stoveless except they need their coffee.

I met two guys carrying motorcycle helmets on the AT, so I can say that at least five times more people go stoveless than carry motorcycle helmets. Is that significant?

Yeah, I'd agree garlic, the number has to be less than 5%. I never even considered thru hiking without a stove. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a good idea.

[LaurieAnn]

The Sierra Stove is lighter, but the Vital Stove packs more compactly.

I will probably get one of these to experiment with, not sure which. Maybe I'll start out with a home made.

Great info... I should get a Sierra Stove at some point and test that as well.

Here is my friend Kevin's video review of the Vital and what originally got my interested piqued...

Kevin Callan - Vital Stove

[garlic08]

But keep in mind that even in warmer months it can get cold at elevation, so a stove with at least a little fuel might be wise at all times.

That's the second-most common argument I've heard for not going stoveless (the first one being COFFEE!). It's probably the better argument, too.

But in my experience, a stove in adverse conditions above treeline can be difficult and sometimes dangerous. The easiest method, cooking in your tent or vestibule, is inherently dangerous (especially with alcohol!) and I refuse to do it (in a three season tent not made for cooking). The safer method of sitting outside, making a windblock with packs and trying not to knock the whole mess over while you're shivering and cussing, is just not fun. And I believe you can go behind on heat input, but that's debatable.

I'd rather warm myself up in my sleeping bag, then dine on hummus and crackers, carrots, celery, tortillas and cheese, cashews, and fig newtons in comfort.

But this depends on having the experience to have the proper insulation and the ability to keep it dry in adverse conditions. If your bag gets wet or is insufficient, you're going to need to get below treeline and get a fire going--a camp stove won't help too much there, either.