More info on Woodstock's new stove

thanks for putting this up as i am burning with curiosity. i'm glad tom understands many buyers could live without the wings. what i would like to know is whether the increased effluent efficiency also provides less wood consumed. also with the smaller firebox than the IS, how does the burn time compare. this last will be of vital interest to many. a stove might be a little more or less efficient and that's one thing, the long burn time most directly affects the unit's ease of use and sweetness. it really impacts your life and schedule.

 

Don't make it too affordable. We still want Woodstock quality.

 

I think the tall pedestal model would be much more popular with legs more similar to the PE Neo stoves or some of the other "modern" stoves. I personally think a nice clean modern looking stove would be a big win for Woodstock. The main complain I hear is people don't like the looks (particularly with the IS and the new Steel stove) so if they just go with a "safe version of it with standard and tall legs I think that would be great for all the people who like the technology but are not sold on the aesthetics.

 

My suggestion would be: Could they build a steel stove that looks exactly like their gas Franklin & Cottage? If they could do that, i'd definitely buy one. I'm just not a big fan on the looks of the new models.

 

Yes, I would like to see something that looks like their gas stoves or better yet would be a box stove similar to Jutol Big Bear.

 

Backwoods Savage , will the survey being coming out on the WS website or will we being sharing here on the FHC site? I'd also like to have BrianK keep an eye on this thread.

Dennis, I'm glad you got some feedback from Tom on the new beta and shared it here. I was one of the 100 people who took the time to fill out the survey and I (as you know) was not happy witht the wings. The beta stoves 'guts' are something that has impressed me, simple designs with ease of operation that produces long burn times with very low emmisions, WS will bank on at least that to sell this stove in the first run of the upcoming production year. And now that we know the designs are still up in the air, I think this stove has a chance with many different looks that would appeal to many folks.
I'm also glad Tom decided to put the two pieces of glass into the betas.

Exciting times for the WS folks for sure. The IS was a hit and I have no doubt the new beta will follow suit.

 

I'd almost say that WS would be able to make certain (within reason) cosmetic changes with regards to this stoves appearance to satisfy potential customers who might not like the winged model but want some kind of personal touch that they came up with on their own.

 

When I saw their 'basic' model for the first time I liked it right away. I'm a function over aesthtics kind of person first, appearances second. After giving this stove the 'once over' I knew that this would be my choice if I was interested in the firebox size and heating capacity it offers.

 

re effluent efficiency the IS has about one <ounce> of schmutz going up the chimney per day. the maximum heat that could be gained from burning an extra ounce of wood is a negligible percentage of the weight going into the stove each day. this is the problem with doing your work too well. i am ready to be advised differently, however, it seems the IS efficiency will be hard to beat insofar as amount of wood needed per day. if they could make a 5% advance in this area, that would be huge, and we'll have to see through beta stove reports. what the factory does gain is bragging rights. jotul should be showing them, they were there first. they shouldn't be showing jotul. it is painfully obvious who has better engineering and on a no BS basis that's going to translate to sales. woodstock also gains peace of mind. they can sleep at nights knowing they will meet any conceivable government clean standard. the restlessness the factory exhibits is admirable and is the best characteristic of our species. meanwhile back at the ranch i go on the dumb principle and get the biggest stove i can find. svelte is for someone else. large stove size pays you in a number of ways.

 

Whats the two pieces of Glass all about?

 

Two glass panes allow the inner one to run hotter and cleaner. The reason glass gets so dirty so fast is because it is a cool area of the stove and the creosote just condenses on it, exactly the same way water runs down the outside of a drinking glass with ice in it when it is hot and humid outside. The second pane of glass is just an insulator to keep the inner pane hotter than it would be normally.

As far as I know, all Woodstock stoves have double glass panes for this reason.

It does seem to work too; my I.S. gets just as dirty when running cool and very slow but once the stove is being used at, say, 'medium' and hotter during the winter, the glass stays cleaner than other stoves I have used and seen being used, and the glass is much faster at self- cleaning when building a hot fire in a stove that already has filthy glass.

Brian

 

I assume an inner pane and an outer pane. I'm surprised they would consider single pane, must be a cost thing.

 

Single pane would radiate the heat faster.

 

I am thinking maybe the double glass may eek out a little better performance and grams of emissions rating also. As part of the equation when in a secondary air mode of burning rather than a low cat burn is that the ability to hold the heat in the firebox.

 

Agreed- I would think the extra insulation of the second pane would keep the firebox temps. up also, which is especially important when burning really low and slow. Then again, just about everything burns cleanly and a lot of stoves are pretty efficient when pushed hard and run hot so the thing that makes a better stove, IMO, is how then run at medium and lower settings.

Brian