Woodstock made it rock again!

Good news and interesting. But I am surprised they did not mention the I.S., the Progressive or A.S. ?? Do you know if they are going to submit any / all of those Dennis?

Thanks for posting that.

Brian

 

Great company, excellent stoves, model of customer service.
And, a tour of the plant in N.H. is worth a trip.
But--after many years with cat stoves (VC ) we settled on non cat Jotuls Oslo and Rangely.
The 2020 Oslo is now a modified cat stove wo a damper. New product that needs real world experience.
Looks like this is a majority Woodstock crowd here.

 

I’m sort of surprised the efficiency numbers are as low as they are. Of course, WS is one of but a hand full that prints the “actual” EPA test numbers...those numbers being exactly the numbers found and reported by the EPA. Still, I thought it would be higher than 77%HHV with a stone stove. I wonder if they plan to tweak the design any at all? That may make it cleaner and more efficient. Either way those “actual” numbers are nothing to sneeze at. What is amazing about WS is the many stoves they have built that have met the new regulations decades before the laws were ever conceived.

 

As I get older & my owb gets older I am thinking hard about replacing it with an indoor efficient wood burner. I am very interested in Woodstock, Jotul , & any other brands that wood be efficient.

 

And now, thanks to the 2020 requirements you will be able to compare efficiencies, emissions, and output.

 

Finally!!!

Finally, some equal comparisons can be made and now stove choice will be mostly about the stove you want to look at for a long time as most stoves are going to burn wood well...safely and cleanly.

 

I have no idea how efficient or not your OWB is, but my neighbor has one and with this warm winter he’s not used much wood. Last year was another story and I know he used way, way more than I did...me even using an old pre-epa stove.

Before I would switch from an OWB I would first spend money insulating and sealing up air leaks before buying a new stove. Window-stats are far superior and far more adjustable than unknown and uncontrollable air leaks.

 

You would think so...but I know of one wood furnace that "passed" the 2020 test, yet is a horrible product...a few minutes of research online will reveal plenty of red flags on these units. Rumor has it that they now have to retest it though, because it has been discovered that it was allowed a variance during the first test...and that is verboten...IMO it will never pass if made to follow all the rules.
But the last I heard it was still listed as 2020 compliant...so one could purchase this model thinking that they are getting something that "burns wood well, safely and cleanly" and in reality be getting a nasty rude surprise. Caveat emptor.

 

All of my comments go back to the above central comments referencing “actual” EPA test numbers with regard to “stoves” that only a handful of wood stove manufacturers voluntarily and accurately report. Thank you for that Woodstock and Blaze King, and a few others, for openly sharing the EPA tests. Good on you!!!

A person would have to do the same with a wood burning furnace. Obviously, some time would have to pass before purchasing “any” new equipment from anyone to verify the test numbers. All a person can do in search for something new is the best they can. The rest is somewhat of your control, relying on test parameters and those performing and reporting the findings.

 

From all that I've seen, they make great products, but their website isn't very well done.

It also doesn't look like they make an insert. Yes, I know you can put a stove in an open FP, but they simply don't look right.

 

All 2020 compliant stoves need to publish the EPA numbers. And some of their stoves met the new regs using the old testing methods yes but I believe most needed some tweaking to meet the standards using the new procedures. Not criticizing them at all they make great stoves. Just clearing up a few things

 

Yes it is absolutely a step forward. But the EPA btu numbers are not with a full box. So while they are useful for comparison as long as you compare crib to crib or chord to chord. It is not really representative of what they will do real world.

 

Oh boy!

So the fact is the very first certified wood heater was in 1984. That certificate was for a King 1101 at 1.76 gr/hr.

But that doesn't really apply because the methods have changed and those with a vested interest in standards and testing know the truth.

3 weeks ago I attended a meeting with a few industry folks, several state and EPA staff. The purpose is to help provide data and input on the formation of an FRM for residential room heaters (wood stoves and inserts). FRM is a Federal Reference Methods testing with cord wood.

3 hours into the meeting I raised my concerns with regard to abandoning crib fuel testing. When is was developed in the early 1980's with Oregon, Manufacturers and lab to test with dimensional lumber, it was designed to provide some basis for an apples to apples comparison, NOT TO REPRESENT REAL WORLD EMISSIONS.

For the last few years all vested parties have realized several factors that contribute to the emissions of a wood heater. Most agree that moisture content is a huge contributor. But one that 100% agree upon is that species has a definite influence upon resulting emissions. So when the new FRM is introduced in 2-3 years, and a state such as Oregon runs a tax credit, stove change out or sets actual allowable emissions standards at a specific limit, you had better hope you had access to Douglas fir. That's right, from all studies done from many labs, Douglas fir burns cleaner that other species. And if you are a stove company outside of the NW, you cannot legally import cord wood Douglas fir from another state or province.

So while it would be great for a consumer to sit down and review data specific to models, you need to be aware that no apples to apples comparison is possible with cord wood.

Lastly, 2020 stoves tested with the ASTM test method, EPA allows this as an ATM (Alternative Test Method) until the FRM is completed, keep the following in mind. In the ASTM method, you get to add 40% more wood on the high burn. And you get to end the test when 90% of the fuel load is consumed. With emissions, efficiency and Btu's all a by product of X divided by duration of burn, cord wood tested units will have a different number that crib fuel tested units. Crib fuel tests end with 100% fuel use and the long "tail" of these runs brings down your Btu's etc.

Caveat Emptor!

 

Excellent post, BKVP

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

BKVP --any comments on the Jotul Oslo V3 "no damper" cat technology ?
20 year warranty on a large "open grid" cat . Interesting but too new for us.
Almost got your Ashford when our 2 new Flexburns failed, but the clearance in the rear to your thermostat was not sufficient.
Nice company you have.