I've never understood why we need 4 or 5 burner ranges, possibly with a slight size variations. I really only ever want one high power burner and one simmer burner. A dedicated wok burner sounds like a great addition. Another option would be to abandon the dedicated range entirely, and have a variety of countertop induction units that can be stored away when not in use. I don't think you could sell a home with a kitchen like that but it would be a big win for versatility, especially in small homes.

> I've never understood why we need 4 or 5 burner ranges, possibly with a slight size variations. I really only ever want one high power burner and one simmer burner.

I don't mean this to sound rude, though I know it will, but this is the literal definition of "argument from ignorance."

You don't use more than two burners, so you don't know why a stove needs more than two.

I personally frequently cook with three or all four burners. Further, there are meals where I might use the two small back burners, and meals where I might use the two large front ones.

I guess you could be describing a need for stoves that came with just two burners, for those who couldn't imagine using more. But, seriously, would you have bought a two-burner model if it had been available, knowing that you might have wished for more even one night a year?

IMO, this would be a major advantage of countertop units. Buy two or four or six or eight, store them away in the cabinet when they’re not in use and enjoy the extra counterspace, bring them out when you need them.

It’s not THAT much of an advantage, since the area of unused burners can be already used as extra counter space, since it flat and resilient. Actually that seems like a major advantage over a gas stove, that’s rarely mentioned.

I thought about doing this, but it didn't make any sense for me. The countertop units are inefficient in terms of space compared to regular stovetops. This isn't suprising, due to component sharing, the need for a case, etc. As soon as you regularly use two of them, you might as well have a stovetop.

There are also down considerations of power (wiring and maximum output) and noise (induction units have fans, which are less noticeable in stovetops), safety (accident risk from cables, tilting, etc) and convenience.

It might work if your everyday usage involves zero to one units. Which is certainly possible, if you don't cook much, but even if you are and you're using other heat sources like a rice cooker, oven, grill, microwave, etc.

Not a terrible idea to have one around when you're limited by your normal capacity, or when you want to simmer a stew at a buffet, or your stovetop breaks or you are redoing your kitchen.

Perhaps because you will want to cook 4-5 things at the same time?

Aor of Indian households when preparing a traditional lunch will have 5-6 items (in the south, particularly in a Brahmin household, you will have one sambhar, one rasam, three vegetable currys, rice, and a fried item usually appalam). This entire meal takes three hours or so to prepare from scratch on my stove (a three burner lpg stove). Two more usable burners will cut this down to about 2 hours

I am pretty amateur at cooking, and I use three burners most of the time that I'm making a proper meal. I'm pretty surprised to hear that this wouldn't be very common for the average cook.

What type of average cook? The average south Asian cook? The average Mexican cook? The average Chinese cook?…

> south, particularly in a Brahmin household, you will have one sambhar, one rasam, three vegetable currys

This is not even remotely typical.

>> south, particularly in a Brahmin household, you will have one sambhar, one rasam, three vegetable currys

> This is not even remotely typical.

Digress!

What is typical?

It is always good to learn about people's lifestyles....

South India consists of fives states and one Union Territory, all with different languages, culture and culinary styles. A meal in a Brahmin household in Hyderabad will be very different to one in Chennai with probably only rice being the common feature. Curry is too generic to be a useful descriptor.

It's hard to make broad generalizations. But having been to all six divisions and having lived in three of them, I feel very confident in saying that a household that cooks three different curries, sambar and rasam for a single meal is very atypical. What GP described sounds closer to a restaurant set course meal and not something a household would cook on a day to day basis.

I helped prepare lunch in a Punjabi household this afternoon, and on the stove there was rice, two subjis, chai and a roti tawa all at the same time. I would consider this a typical (if not modest) lunch routine amongst the many Punjabi households in which I have had lunch.

> and on the stove there was rice, two subjis, chai and a roti tawa all at the same time.

So, they had 5 burners?

Anyways, my comment was more about the number of dishes. Two curries as in your example is fairly typical. Three curries, a sambar and a rasam like the GP said is definitely not. Chai at lunchtime does sound strange to me but then again, I'm not really familiar with Punjabi culinary preferences.

I think there's both a practical and aesthetic reason.

The practical reason is that people have different sized pots and pans. I don't want to put my small sauce pan on a large burner that will waste the majority of its heating surface. Similarly, I need a large surface to heat a big pan.

The aesthetic is that a lot of cooktops are combination stove/oven and thus have to be big enough for the oven bit. Once you already have that surface area, you might as well fill it up to make it seem more substantial. A stovetop with room for 4/5 burners will look like the manufacturer skimped out if it has only 2 burners.

I normally only need one or two burners. But a couple times per year I need all 4 and am wishing for more. I try to cook a variety of meals

I almost always use 3: one for pasta/rice/vegetables, one for some meat, and one for some kind of sauce.