Gary, I'd love to chuck the profane stove but we sometimes end up camping where open fires are not allowed (during hot dry weather). The Coleman profane stove is the kind with one burner and a nice big grill so we can still cook steaks, fish etc. With only one other burner, it's nice to have something to boil up some potatoes, while the grill is doing the steak, and the frying pan on the other burner is cooking the mushrooms. It also takes almost 30 min on the profane stove to boil up the lobster pot when we are camping on Grand Manan Island. Stan
Doc, Given the following quote, attributable to you a little further up this thread ".. I was made to be lightweight, easy to use, and powerful enough to cook your food in extended hikes and backpacking trips.. ", can I ask whether you will hire yourself out, as I'm occassionally in need of someone with just those qualities on my hikes . I take it that you will need a few days warning to get down here, but that shouldn't be a problem as I can wait . Rob
I've done that but found driving the Rover with a tyre fixed to the steering wheel a bit over the top. Might i suggest you only put them where the rubber meets the road. Hat, coat, door. See you on the morrow m'lady. lance
Hi Guys This has been a very interesting thread, but I would like to bring it back to where it started. It seems that the 111 has been acknowledged as a good performer and the 550 good for backpacking. In fact, the 111 has been virtually dismissed as a backpacking stove. But when it was designed and manufactured way back, what do you think was its intended use? Yes it was a backpacking stove! Back in the 1970s when men were men and pansies were flowers I lugged a 111 around in my backpack for hundreds of miles. We never really thought about weight unless it we were going hiking for a few days. For one or two day hikes, I used a 111 many times. Preferably, the cooking gear would be shared between two of us. One had the the stove and the other with the pans and spare fuel. But many of the times I just carried the lot myself. My previous stove was a Primus 210 which was in a tin containing lots of bits which had to be 'erected'. The 111 was dear to buy in comparison, but was considered the bees-knees. Just open the tin and you were soon enjoying one of the best burners ever invented. Can't lose any parts and a windshield built in - what more could you want?!! On the same lines, the number one tent over here in the UK was the Vango Force 10. This was often split between two people. But carrying even half of a wet Force 10 was very heavy - but we did it! How much different things are now.
Good Morning, Trevor, Great to see you commenting in this thread! I agree with you, 100%! I've backpacked a 111B many times before, along with the fuel, and cookset, and never thought that much about it. But, when we got into serious long-distance backpacking, we wanted a stove that was much lighter, and found quite a few good ones. Back in the '80's, most folks were already developing the mindset that too much weight was a bad thing. I still have my original mountaineering boots, which I wore all the time in early backpacking. They are like bricks, now, compared to my more modern Asolo boots, which I wear quite a bit in everyday stuff. I've mentioned a 1960's book that I have, which explains how to use the 111/111B in a way that cuts down quite a bit on the weight, and still allows it to be fully functional. I'll experiment with that, and get back to you. Should be a very interesting setup, IF it works!! The 111 is really a wonderful, trustworthy, versatile stove, which really does everything that most anyone could want in the wilderness. One last comment, just for grins. Back in the 1980's, Sweet Bride and I backpacked in Yosemite National Park, and ended up climbing up the back side of Half Dome. We spent a week in the Park, and did tons of backpacking, including lots of climbing. Guess what stove we took along? You won't believe it, but it was our very first Optimus 22B!!!!!! I have a few photos, taken during that trip, and when I'm using that great stove. I'll snap a digital photo of a few of those photographs, and post them here, just for grins. Ahhhhh..... Those were the days!! I was really tickled to have a small, two-burner stove, that would actually fit into my backpack, as our two-burner Coleman was much too large!! Fun! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
Hey, Rob, That, my Friend, is hilarious!!!! Of course, I fumble-fingered the original intent of that comment.... Oh, well.... a promise is a promise, so guess I'd better pack and start swimming, eh?!! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
Doc you beat me to this but anyway. Trevor is spot on with how times and attitudes have changed. I have a gear list from a hill camping trip I took with an outward bounds centre from Howtown Cumbria in the 80s'(townie kids once a year lakeland trip). The list includes Vango Force Ten tents and an Optimus 22.
I was perusing the internet last night, trying to get more info on a small stove I am interested in and came across a spot where the guy had used some fancy monitoring equipment and surprising to me at least, one model of Coleman was the fastest heating up water in a controlled test. The 111B beat out the 111T by a tiny bit, a Russian stove was second. Using gas of course.
Greetings, All, A SVEA 123 vs a 111 stove? I cannot see how the little SVEA, as good as it is, would ever "out-perform" an Optimus 111 stove!! Ain't gonna happen in the real world, me thinks!! Let's see: SVEA 123 with +/- 4700 BTU's vs Optimus (Primus) 111 with +/- 10,000 BTU's. And the winner is: You be the judge!! 8) As much as I dearly love the SVEA 123, there is no way on God's-Green-Earth, that it will "out-perform" a 111! If anyone has tests that prove otherwise, please, by all means, share them here, as I'm sure that many others, besides myself, would love to read about such testing!! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
