WS Ideal Steel or BK Ashford for me?

I've been lurking here as well as the other site's to garnish as much info as I can get prior to making a choice on a stove for our home. I am new to modern woodstove burning and heating. My wife and I live in Bozeman MT (Zone 3) and will be in the midst of a major rehab on an old bungalow in town, that in the end should end up at 1,900 sq. ft. and will be very well insulated with corebond in the lid and fashed and batted in the walls. Basement is 600 sq. ft. and already insulated with 2" of blueboard. Only bedrooms and bathrooms upstairs, open concept on main floor with large open stairwell.

Now on to the stove choices. $2,500 gets me a decked out ideal steel to my door. $2,995.00 gets me an Ashford that I have to pick up an hour away. So it's the $500.00 question here. Other than the appearance of the stoves being at odds, both of which I like, and of course my wife favors the Ashford a bit due to the classical look in the old bungalow, what is the $500 benefit of the BK if any.

Is one better than the other for ease of use?
Will one accept a greater variance in wood moisture content? We burn fir and fir and fir out here.
I "think" I really only care about a 10 hour burn time with coals enough to get going again in the am.
I like the idea of even heating in the shoulder seasons as we have l o n g shoulder seasons here.
Does one offer a better "show" than the other so my wife too will wear skimpy clothing due to ambiance?

Soapstone inserts and panels with steel vs. steel wrapped in cast...

$500 skins pays for a chainsaw.

Anything else I've overlooked like install clearances etc. would be appreciated.

Thanks.... Brian

 

2 things...
1. You said you have long shoulder seasons. Ashford advertises a 30 hr low and slow burn. You may only need 10 hours but 20 or more is oh so good. And BK burn times are not BS.
2. Happy wife happy life.

Both are great stoves and you can't go wrong with either.

 

Blue Vomit, you're saying that I'll get 20+ hours more burn time with fir than with the ideal steel? That would be a difference maker if that's the case. How does one know if burn times are BS or not? Seems like what I've read about the Ideal Steel is that there is infinitely more info about burn times than the BK. I'll assume the users on this group by in large are not bs'r's. I wish I could find more user info on the Ashford like I have on the IS.

Thanks for the reply.

 

That's a tough choice.

I've done the Blaze King thing. Ideal Steel is next at the top of my list. Can't go wrong either way. Both companies are first rate, and anything you read about them, and info from the manufacturers themselves, is no BS.

The only thing install-wise is that the IS requires R.4 for the hearth, which is like 1/2" Durock+ceramic tile or similar, while the BK is non-combustible, ember protection only. Other clearances are similar.

Good luck.

 

I have to advocate for the IS. I've never owned a BK but have seen and heard of the reputation, it's well enough that I can't bash it. Burn times for both stoves are incredible, comparison for each is close. As far as clean burn technology, the IS might have a slight edge but it's probably not a deal breaker. Looks are a deal breaker when it comes to more than your point of view, there are others like your wife's to consider. The IS is a massive beast, very commercial looking with some personal touches that you can incorporate if you decide to.

The Woodstock website has all the details on every aspect of this stove and if you don't see the answer they will be more than happy to get it for you. Also, on this forum there must be hundreds of pages of beta testers posts for this stove and at least 3 or 4 current IS threads that are fairly current. We have 18 current IS new production owners and 4 beta testers here.

 

What other stove's are there that have a traditional appearance and offer clean burning and long burn times in your estimation? We love the looks (and the prices) of the PE t5/6 and the Jotul, but I'm not sure either would offer the 10 burn time with fir/pine. Odly enough we have access here in Bozeman to any stoves except BK and of course WS stoves.

Our living room will not be huge, I'll have to look at the size of the IS vs. the Ashford closely to see if size is a difference maker. The rants about the fire show on the IS are alluring. No such rants about the Ashford. I'd gladly pay another $300 or more for a IS2 with traditional looks btw. Brian

 

Not a fan of the looks of the Progress Hybrid nor any other of Woodstock's product line. Victorian looking IME. Rather opt for a modern looking product like a Neo by Pacific Energy or the like vs. the Baroque look of the Woodstock's. I too, as does my wife, like the old classic look that most stove companies adhere to. The IS is cool, I kinda like the neo industrial look, certainly it's become a popular look in design here in Bozeman.

 

I live in Helena and the Ashford 30 did a 24 hour burn last night from 6 pm to 6 pm with a fir and lodgepole mix. It was from a cold start and you know what kind of weather we had last night and today. Heating 1400 sq ft new construction. What city did you get the quot from. May be able to get it cheaper from another dealer close to you.

 

I still haven't grown on the looks of the IS but it is pretty cool that it has so many options. Not sure it would do as well as a BK with Pine though. BK is pretty well known for long burns with soft woods. I've gone 20+ hours burning Red Pine with my old Princess. I don't think any other stove can do as well in the shoulder season.

 

Got the quote from True Value in Ennis. Helluva nice guy, but no budging on price. I respect that, but on the other hand they have no inventory, no show room, and no value added to support list price. I'm doing all my own research and thusly would prefer not to pay list. This is another reason to think seriously about Woodstock. I sincerely wish there was as good of a dealer for WS or BK as there is for all other brands here in town who offer experience, install, and tremendous value added. It seems foolish to pay list from someone who simply has the stove shipped to them from the mfg. imo. I'd consider the Ashford if it were in line with the Woodstock. An argument could be made that from a materials and technology standpoint both stoves are of equal value.

 

I have also owned a Jotul Oslo and it wasn't anything like I have with the IS. Jotul does not use Catalyst combustion, only secondary burn tubes. And the IS being a hybrid steel stove has both capabilities, secondary burn and catalyst. I can't comment much on any of the other stoves you mentioned, I've only had a Jotul and WS. And I know you mentioned the softwoods you have access to, I cannot comment on that either, I have some softwoods but mostly hardwoods, so the IS has only seen Birch, Oak, ash and maple so far. Some of the other IS owners may chime in on the splits they burn. You have some great questions as a potential stove buyer
Keep em coming

 

But while the hardware is attractive, the raves about the IS fireshow is very alluring. I have not seen one blog with pics that state that you can get the illumination of secondary burn on an Ashford that the IS offers. It's a package deal for us, we want controllability, ambiance, and desirable looks. IF ONLY WS MADE THE IS IN A TRADITIONAL LOOK. I'd pay $$$$ for that, and so would others. Steel box with cast wrap.

 

WS is also coming out with a 'Franklin style' stove in the near future. The same hybrid burn capabilities as the IS, with soapstone and maybe some better looks than the IS on a slightly smaller scale. Betas should be coming out into the field this season. You might see the test model in the WS lab on their website.

 

Thank you, I've thought long and hard about this. If I'm going to commit to the entire experience of wood burning, the ability to opt out of the fracking contribution in lieu of sustainable and affordable heat, provide myself with the joy of time in the field harvesting fuel and the ancillary benefits it offers, then I'd like to invest in a product that maximizes that investment. For me the definition of that would be perhaps more complex than others. An attractive product that felt like furniture, with outstanding function, at a price point that is competitive. I have no problems paying an extra $300 to $500 for that product, but BK falls short only in one area (the fireshow), IS falls short IMO in one area, aesthetics (for the masses). C'mon BK and WS, put the whole package together. Right now as it looks, I need to order by summer. If no changes occur, I'll opt (with trepidation) for the IS.

 

Awesome, unless smaller means smaller fuel capacity. If smaller means smaller footprint with similar firebox size, then I'm in. To heat the average home of 1,700 to 2,000 sq. ft., volume is welcome. Homes will be smaller in the future, for now the norm is the aforementioned size or larger I'd think. We're trying to squeeze our home remodel down, we're at 1,800+ now with two bedrooms. I think WS could trim down the IS without sacrificing much if any firebox capacity and provide their client base with a more mainstream look as you mentioned.

 

I believe that was their intention with this new stove coming out shortly. A different look, a smaller size and the same burn technology. The IS is around a 3.2 cu ft firebox and I want to say the Franklin will be around a 2.6 ish size firebox. Don't quote me on that. I know the IS will do a 2k sq ft home, I'd say the Franklin will be a little bit under that.

 

Well it just may be that a 2.6 ish size would heat effectively an 1,800 sq. ft. home that was very well insulated and tight. Thank you for the heads up on that, could be interesting. Hopefully that "ish" is more like 2.8/9. If you see any beta info on that would you kindly send it my way. Can't find a thing.

 

Here is a pic of the prototype Franklin in the testing area. It is very basic looking right now, just running numbers with burns and making R&D improvements on the go.