# EPA looking to delay 2020 Emission Regulations



## lampmfg (Apr 30, 2018)

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/

I have attached our response-


----------



## Mojappa (Apr 30, 2018)

well said, hopefully it doesn't fall on deaf ears.


----------



## BoiledOver (Apr 30, 2018)

Drain the swamp? No, he enjoys the swamp just as every other swamp inhabitant.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 30, 2018)

I can see why your upset as the previous ruling helped your business, but possibly at the expense of other business,s.
But if you have a better product,it should sell itself without help from the EPA. Cleaner is usually more fuel efficient anyway. 
When it comes to pollution local communities can enact their own regulations to restrict the worst offenders.
Its always a balancing act,some will love you and some will hate you no matter what you do, so it looks like they are leaning toward having least amount of business.s hurt. That said i hope you prevail in your lawsuit,i think there is plenty of room for improvement in wood stove emissions. I would think a ban on non EPA certified stove operation (And there are a lot still out there) would do so much more to reduce emissions, that would be a better place to start.


----------



## E Yoder (May 1, 2018)

If the cost of testing was lower a lot of this debate would disappear. From what I hear from the manufacturer I work with (HeatMaster) the high cost of testing coupled with the uncertainty of how the legal battles will sort out makes it very difficult to know what to prioritize. 
If the testing cost came down or was simplified then you could afford to guess. And just aim high and be the best you can be.


----------



## lampmfg (May 1, 2018)

I agree about the testing, and that's why I'm so upset with all this stuff.  The stress my dad went through (he was a complete wreck) to get this passed exceeding the 2020 regulations was unbelievable.  It was nearly a two years process when you factor in all the mishaps, not on our end.


----------



## E Yoder (May 1, 2018)

Sounds familiar. We would have improved our design already but the regs won't allow it without retesting. Test methods are changing.. 
I don't know what the answer is. What we have now isn't helping innovation.
Lack of funding creates a bottleneck so it's not all the EPA's fault. Trying to find a path forward through the courts doesn't look pretty.


----------



## Mojappa (May 1, 2018)

E Yoder said:


> If the cost of testing was lower a lot of this debate would disappear. From what I hear from the manufacturer I work with (HeatMaster) the high cost of testing coupled with the uncertainty of how the legal battles will sort out makes it very difficult to know what to prioritize.
> If the testing cost came down or was simplified then you could afford to guess. And just aim high and be the best you can be.




But it’s not like this was sprung on everyone three weeks ago, there’s been plenty of time to start the process. 

I will say, I do agree with their thought process that the testing should be done with cord wood, not kiln dried lumber.


----------



## E Yoder (May 1, 2018)

Yes, you're right. Every manufacturer should have made this a priority.


----------



## lampmfg (May 1, 2018)

Mojappa said:


> But it’s not like this was sprung on everyone three weeks ago, there’s been plenty of time to start the process.
> 
> I will say, I do agree with their thought process that the testing should be done with cord wood, not kiln dried lumber.



Ours was done with cordwood.


----------



## Mojappa (May 1, 2018)

lampmfg said:


> Ours was done with cordwood.


That’s good to know. You guys will definitely get my money next go around when the Drolet reaches the end of its life.


----------



## woodey (May 1, 2018)

Mojappa said:


> You guys will definitely get my money next go around



And it will be money well spent.


----------



## lampmfg (May 7, 2018)

Nice editorial 

http://www.timberjay.com/stories/epa-wood-stove-regs,14071


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 7, 2018)

lampmfg said:


> http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/
> 
> I have attached our response-


So you want the new regs so that you can profit from it...all the while lambasting other companies who are lobbying to keep the regs?  

Get real man.  The hypocrisy is staggering.  

Make a great product.  Fill a niche.  Price it competitively.  People will buy it.


----------



## Mojappa (May 7, 2018)

He wants the new regs because they invested everything to meet them rather than banking on lobbyists helping to continue the pollution of our only planet to live on. The competition had enough time to make a product that would pass the tests, what’s their excuse for not being ready?  To put it differently; It’s not fair to the kids that studied for the exam to postpone the exam because others wasted their time.


----------



## maple1 (May 7, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> So you want the new regs so that you can profit from it...all the while lambasting other companies who are lobbying to keep the regs?
> 
> Get real man.  The hypocrisy is staggering.
> 
> Make a great product.  Fill a niche.  Price it competitively.  People will buy it.



I am failing to see this hypocrisy you speak of. Are you sure you've been reading correctly?


----------



## JRHAWK9 (May 7, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> So you want the new regs so that you can profit from it..



Nobody said anything about any new regulations.  The ones in discussion were put it place back in 2015 and the 2nd phase is set to take affect in 2020.  These are not new.  They were not even involved in the process of making the regulations.  They simply have just been preparing for such regulations in which they KNEW were going to come.  Something the rest of the industry should have been doing as well.

If a company of less than 10 employees with hardly any R&D budget can do it, there's no excuse why the largest company in the industry with a MUCH larger R&D budget can't as well.   



sportbikerider78 said:


> .all the while lambasting other companies who are lobbying to keep the regs?



Don't really know what you are reading, Lamppa -ARE- for keeping the current regulations as they are.  The companies you seem to be siding with -ARE- the ones who are doing the lobbying to get the regulations changed.


----------



## brenndatomu (May 7, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> all the while lambasting other companies who are lobbying to keep the regs?


Keep the regs? You mean roll back the regs...so they continue to build this kind of crap? https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/fire-chief-or-shelter-epa-stoves-feedback.167418/


----------



## BoiledOver (May 7, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> So you want the new regs so that you can profit from it...all the while lambasting other companies who are lobbying to keep the regs?
> 
> Get real man.  The hypocrisy is staggering.
> 
> Make a great product.  Fill a niche.  Price it competitively.  People will buy it.


*BOLD *statements. Care to share your logic with the rest of us? It appears that facts have no bearing in your judgements.


----------



## E Yoder (May 7, 2018)

The irony in this discussion is the EPA has to my knowledge done nothing to even enforce step 1 (2015), even during the Obama years.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (May 7, 2018)

E Yoder said:


> The irony in this discussion is the EPA has to my knowledge done nothing to even enforce step 1 (2015), even during the Obama years.



I've wondered this myself.  Can one still buy non 2015 compliant units from the factory?  Non-compliant NOS units I'm sure are available.


----------



## brenndatomu (May 7, 2018)

JRHAWK9 said:


> I've wondered this myself.  Can one still buy non 2015 compliant units from the factory?  Non-compliant NOS units I'm sure are available.


Dunno what the boiler guys have been doing, but I know Yukon said there was no sell through...once May 15 2017 hit, all new unsold non compliant units were only good to sell to Canada, or as parts donors. But somewhere here I have heard of a few stove shops that apparently have still been trying to sell a few non-compliant NOS units (furnaces specifically) don't remember what brand...


----------



## Mojappa (May 7, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> Dunno what the boiler guys have been doing, but I know Yukon said there was no sell through...once May 15 2017 hit, all new unsold non compliant units were only good to sell to Canada, or as parts donors. But somewhere here I have heard of a few stove shops that apparently have still been trying to sell a few non-compliant NOS units (furnaces specifically) don't remember what brand...


I was under the impression that outdoor furnaces/boilers weren't included in the new regulations (based on little to nothing). seems that crowd is opposed to burning well seasoned wood more efficiently from the few I've talked to. They are afraid they won't be able to toss 3' green logs in anymore. lol


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 7, 2018)

BoiledOver said:


> *BOLD *statements. Care to share your logic with the rest of us? It appears that facts have no bearing in your judgements.



This part of the article sums it up the issue, as I understand it.  From the article posted on blogspot

"Since the 2015 regulations went into effect, scores of wood and pellet stoves and boilers have been tested to meet the 2020 standards and most prices have not gone up significantly.  The 2015 regulations began a process of requiring that manufacturers test and report their efficiencies, and delaying the 2020 deadline would set back efficiency disclosures, harming the ability of consumers to choose more efficient appliances." 

OP says his stoves meet 20 regulations.  Great.  Now he is ticked off that others might have an extension for more time.  

It is totally hypocritical to say that "Big business throwing their weight around..." when he himself is in the very same business segment he is claiming throws its weight around.  He just planned ahead...no doubt to make some more of those profits.  Normal to any business, I think. 

Then in the letter...
"What good are jobs if you're too sick or dead to even work?  Or if family and friends are getting sick from air pollution?"  

That is pretty silly point coming from a manufacturer of a woodstove.  Honestly...how efficient are any of our stoves on startup?  How many of us ALWAYS have the perfect wood to burn?  Do you think everyone who runs a woodstove takes the care most of us here on this website use?  

If the OP believes smoke at the 2015 reg kills people, he needs to get out of the business, because most people aren't running their stoves with dry wood.  Those stoves may never see the claimed numbers in a study.  

I apologize for making a short statement and not explaining myself.  I dropped a grenade that didn't make much sense.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 7, 2018)

Mojappa said:


> I was under the impression that outdoor furnaces/boilers weren't included in the new regulations (based on little to nothing). seems that crowd is opposed to burning well seasoned wood more efficiently from the few I've talked to. They are afraid they won't be able to toss 3' green logs in anymore. lol



Some people with OWB really do abuse the kindness of their neighbors.  There are some valleys I drive through on cold mornings, you can barely bare to drive through...let alone live in.  I'd be knocking on that guys door and having a real "come to Jesus" talk with him.


----------



## Mojappa (May 7, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Some people with OWB really do abuse the kindness of their neighbors.  There are some valleys I drive through on cold mornings, you can barely bare to drive through...let alone live in.  I'd be knocking on that guys door and having a real "come to Jesus" talk with him.



Problem is most of those people “know what they’re doing” and cannot under any circumstances be re-educated in anything that might threaten “what they know”. It is a depressing human condition that appears at an uninspiring high rate in many different facets


----------



## DoubleB (May 7, 2018)

I think this conversation needs someone on this site to propose what the EPA limits for 2023 and 2026 should be, and the rationale for them.

Or are the limits for 2020 good enough?  

It seems to be unforgivable on this site to question whether the limits have merit, or whether 3 years (since 2015) is enough time for most manufacturers to pass emissions tests.  So are you instead willing to lay out a long-term emissions plan and rationale so that those manufacturers have no excuse in everyone's mind?


----------



## woodey (May 7, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> . He just planned ahead...no doubt to make some more of those profits.



How dare a company to "plan ahead" and to  EXCEED federally mandated standards..As for profits it seems to me that the ones who chose to kick the can down the road  and  not invest  into making  a better product are the ones putting profit ahead of all else.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (May 7, 2018)

Funny, I purchased the Kuuma for there niche and price. There niche being easy to use, set it and forget it. Funnier, It appears the kuuma runs cleaner and better with wood on the wetter side, as in Burns better at 22% than 15% moisture. Win Win, No?


sportbikerider78 said:


> This part of the article sums it up the issue, as I understand it.  From the article posted on blogspot
> 
> "Since the 2015 regulations went into effect, scores of wood and pellet stoves and boilers have been tested to meet the 2020 standards and most prices have not gone up significantly.  The 2015 regulations began a process of requiring that manufacturers test and report their efficiencies, and delaying the 2020 deadline would set back efficiency disclosures, harming the ability of consumers to choose more efficient appliances."
> 
> ...


----------



## maple1 (May 8, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> It is totally hypocritical to say that "Big business throwing their weight around..." when he himself is in the very same business segment he is claiming throws its weight around.



But they weren't throwing their weight around. And they are not big business - they are small. You're generalizing on that one. They were playing by the rules, in good faith, ultimately at cost to themselves.

I still am not seeing what you are seeing.


----------



## E Yoder (May 8, 2018)

Question for lampmfg- how do I keep informed on this situation as it unfolds? I think I signed up for email updates from the federal register, but haven't gotten one for a long time.


----------



## lampmfg (May 9, 2018)

E Yoder said:


> Question for lampmfg- how do I keep informed on this situation as it unfolds? I think I signed up for email updates from the federal register, but haven't gotten one for a long time.


I'm not 100% sure - The Alliance for Green Heat has been our best resource.  We also have e-mail chains going back and forth with our state politicians.


----------



## E Yoder (May 9, 2018)

Thanks, I watch AGH too.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 9, 2018)

maple1 said:


> But they weren't throwing their weight around. And they are not big business - they are small. You're generalizing on that one. .



I didn't say big, I said segment.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 9, 2018)

STIHLY DAN said:


> Funny, I purchased the Kuuma for there niche and price. There niche being easy to use, set it and forget it. Funnier, It appears the kuuma runs cleaner and better with wood on the wetter side, as in Burns better at 22% than 15% moisture. Win Win, No?


That's great.  I'm glad you are happy with your stove.


----------



## BoiledOver (May 9, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> OP says his stoves meet 20 regulations.  Great.  Now he is ticked off that others might have an extension for more time.


Would you be ticked off, or happy as a cat if you were in lampmfg shoes?

Changing the rules during the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl to favor one team or the other is equivalent to what is going on with this issue. If that is cool with you, ok. The playing field was level for ALL of the manufacturers and there was obviously enough time to get up to speed.

Your responses in this thread seemed a bit harsh towards Lamppa Manufacturing and I asked of your logic in an attempt to understand something I might be missing. If you can elaborate further why you see the family outfit as the bad guys here, I am all ears.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (May 9, 2018)

BoiledOver said:


> Changing the rules during the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl to favor one team or the other is equivalent to what is going on with this issue.



The EPA tried pulling a similar stunt after they had already passed and completed the testing!  They were pretty much just waiting for the EPA to issue their Phase 2 certification and were notified how the "test was changed" after everything was said and done.  I'll let Garrett elaborate more if he so chooses to do so.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 9, 2018)

BoiledOver said:


> Would you be ticked off, or happy as a cat if you were in lampmfg shoes?
> 
> Changing the rules during the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl to favor one team or the other is equivalent to what is going on with this issue. If that is cool with you, ok. The playing field was level for ALL of the manufacturers and there was obviously enough time to get up to speed.
> 
> Your responses in this thread seemed a bit harsh towards Lamppa Manufacturing and I asked of your logic in an attempt to understand something I might be missing. If you can elaborate further why you see the family outfit as the bad guys here, I am all ears.


I did..post #24.

You think being ahead of the game is a competitive disadvantage?  Are you joking with me?

To answer your question..i would be thrilled!  I would also be thrilled my competition sucks!

He now has a more fuel efficient stove.  Less emissions than the competition and what I assume, is a competitively priced product AND first to market!
I'm an outside sales engineer for a living..if he or his sales guy can't sell with these advantages, he needs to seriously consider who is selling his product.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (May 9, 2018)

I am thinking the sales are just fine as there is a back log of work for them. Hence building a bigger place. This does not change the fact of fairness in the rules.


----------



## brenndatomu (May 9, 2018)

This whole thing reminds me a bit of high school...you study your butt off to pass the SAT test, and then take it as soon as you can...everybody else drags there feet, then after you pass it, the procrastinators ask for more time...and to take the test open book! 
Sounds fair to me...


----------



## DoubleB (May 9, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> This whole thing reminds me a bit of high school...you study your butt off to pass the SAT test, and then take it as soon as you can...everybody else drags there feet, then after you pass it, the procrastinators ask for more time...and to take the test open book!
> Sounds fair to me...



Yep, I'm the nerd who has been in those shoes a number of times.  And sometimes the teacher or professor realizes that they made a mistake, that even if DoubleB is the only student who passed the exam, they realize and I agree that it's not helping anyone by flunking all of the other engineering students who still will do decent work once released to society.  That's different than weeding out the underperformers.

IIRC the "test" was finalized in 2015, and it look Lamppa a lot longer than that to get it right.  I'm pretty impressed for sure.  It was a bet on an uncertain future, and they were right.  But I don't think we can say that the others were procrastinating.  Even since 2015, those of us in product development know that 3 years is not much time to develop new things with stringent requirements.  

For those others of you who are preparing to skewer me, I'll just ask if you thought 5 years ago that the Caddy (became my Tundra) was an awful polluter.  If you're honest and think it has been decent for its era, then can you propose what the emissions limits should be for 2023 and 2026, just so I can agree with you that manufacturers will have plenty of time to know and design for the new rules?  And if you're not willing to propose what those limits should be 5 years from now, then why are you so hostilely defending the 5 year interval from 2015 to 2020?


----------



## JRHAWK9 (May 9, 2018)

DoubleB said:


> IIRC the "test" was finalized in 2015, and it look Lamppa a lot longer than that to get it right.  I'm pretty impressed for sure.  It was a bet on an uncertain future, and they were right.  But I don't think we can say that the others were procrastinating.  Even since 2015, those of us in product development know that 3 years is not much time to develop new things with stringent requirements.
> 
> For those others of you who are preparing to skewer me, I'll just ask if you thought 5 years ago that the Caddy (became my Tundra) was an awful polluter.  If you're honest and think it has been decent for its era, then can you propose what the emissions limits should be for 2023 and 2026, just so I can agree with you that manufacturers will have plenty of time to know and design for the new rules?  And if you're not willing to propose what those limits should be 5 years from now, then why are you so hostilely defending the 5 year interval from 2015 to 2020?




They all knew it was coming though, just like Daryl did.....they'd be a fool to think otherwise.  The writing was on the wall for many years.  Some chose to do something about it, think/act progressively and make a difference.  Others just sat back and waited for big brother to force them to do something and then when that time came they started crying about how it's not enough time.  I don't think it's as much about the 3 or 5 years or whatever it is as it is the fact they are going to be using the extension they are fighting for NOT for product development but to give them more time to fight/lobby against the certification in it's entirety.  This is what Lamppa is most concerned about I'm guessing.  It's not like the VF is the only wood burning appliance to pass phase 2, other quality gassification boilers have as well.  I don't know how any big company can look anybody in the eyes and state they "aren't capable" when a family business of 7 people way up in B.F.E. accomplished it with zero R&D budget in comparison.  It's quite laughable to me.


----------



## maple1 (May 10, 2018)

DoubleB said:


> Yep, I'm the nerd who has been in those shoes a number of times.  And sometimes the teacher or professor realizes that they made a mistake, that even if DoubleB is the only student who passed the exam, they realize and I agree that it's not helping anyone by flunking all of the other engineering students who still will do decent work once released to society.  That's different than weeding out the underperformers.
> 
> IIRC the "test" was finalized in 2015, and it look Lamppa a lot longer than that to get it right.  I'm pretty impressed for sure.  It was a bet on an uncertain future, and they were right.  But I don't think we can say that the others were procrastinating.  Even since 2015, those of us in product development know that 3 years is not much time to develop new things with stringent requirements.
> 
> For those others of you who are preparing to skewer me, I'll just ask if you thought 5 years ago that the Caddy (became my Tundra) was an awful polluter.  If you're honest and think it has been decent for its era, then can you propose what the emissions limits should be for 2023 and 2026, just so I can agree with you that manufacturers will have plenty of time to know and design for the new rules?  And if you're not willing to propose what those limits should be 5 years from now, then why are you so hostilely defending the 5 year interval from 2015 to 2020?



Not 100% the point IMO. We could assume that the 2020 regs will be it - they won't be tightened up more. It's not all about that. Lots of $$ was also spent in just getting the certification - that's likely as big a part of it as making a burner that would meet the requirements. Other manufacturers & dealers had a real long tough go getting that certification even starting with a clean burner, at big business risk, and in good faith, now only to see the 'other guys' get cut a huge break from all their whining about it. I.e., all the flunking students in the above exam example didn't crack a book or put any effort in.


----------



## Highbeam (May 10, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> To answer your question..i would be thrilled! I would also be thrilled my competition sucks!
> 
> He now has a more fuel efficient stove. Less emissions than the competition and what I assume, is a competitively priced product AND first to market!
> I'm an outside sales engineer for a living..if he or his sales guy can't sell with these advantages, he needs to seriously consider who is selling his product.



Those are great advantages for the Kuuma. But you know what would be even better? It would really be great for Kuuma if all other furnaces were illegal to sell. That would make Kuuma the only choice and really the ultimate competitive advantage that was at stake here. Kuuma will continue to sell based on those other advantages but without the monopoly. 

This isn't like one guy in an engineering class passing the test so the whole test gets thrown out. This is like the guy that graduated with an engineering degree compared to a engineering school dropout with a basket weaving degree.   

As a potential furnace buyer, I would consider all options and all specifications including cost. The emissions being better than 2015 is no big deal and the efficiency is only so-so for any of the furnaces including kuuma. All other furnaces being off the market is a game changer advantage that was to be won by all other companies failing. Just like when all of the engineering school dropouts become basket weavers.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 10, 2018)

The good news is lampmgf is ahead of the curve. A good place to be. I do think their hard work will pay off. Its a balancing act for the EPA. Lots of jobs and companies at stake. I can see both sides of this issue.


----------



## lampmfg (May 10, 2018)

First - I want to thank everyone for the support we receive on here!
Second- There is a lot of excellent points that everyone has brought up regarding the testing and EPA regulations
Third- It's tough for us to plan anything now.  We spent a lot of time, especially since 2013 when this stuff was really getting talked about deciding on how to move forward.   When this was finalized in 2015 we set-up our plan for testing to meet the 2017 deadline.  We could write a whole book on that process and being the guinea pigs.  While planning this out, we've been working with our city (Tower, MN) which has been in severe decline for many years and even lost the high school.  We are supposed to start building a modest new factory in the next month but now with this latest potential EPA set back it has been difficult to finalize.  
Fourth- Budget furnaces being sold at big box stores definitely affected our sales the past couple of years because I'm very confident if they hadn't come to the market we would be busy building furnaces 12 months a year instead of 6.  However, we stayed the course with our plan with our eyes on the big picture.  They made the decision to spend $ developing these new models every year and R & D'ing them on the public knowing they had no chance to be compliant with the 2020 regulations.  I think our pricing is currently very fair for what you get and if others can pass they will be priced similarly.


----------



## Ashful (May 10, 2018)

DoubleB said:


> ... I agree that it's not helping anyone by flunking all of the other engineering students who still will do decent work once released to society.  That's different than weeding out the underperformers.


Not that this poor analogy needs more discussion, but I’d tend to disagree.  It’s one in twenty who are worth their title, if not fewer.  When you manage to find a truly competent one, who managed to correctly interpret and retain most of what they were tought in school, hold on with both hands at any cost.  Too many somehow coasted thru, without ever really learning the required material, lacking the ability to productively apply it.  Most universities should be downright ashamed of the low bar they’ve set for passing undergraduate students in STEM fields, but it’s financial concerns working against those principles, in most cases.

Yes, I spent a long time bouncing between the real world and academia.


----------



## maple1 (May 10, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Those are great advantages for the Kuuma. But you know what would be even better? It would really be great for Kuuma if all other furnaces were illegal to sell. That would make Kuuma the only choice and really the ultimate competitive advantage that was at stake here. Kuuma will continue to sell based on those other advantages but without the monopoly.



I don't think it was only a possible monopolistic factor at play here. Rather, if all the furnaces would be made to comply on that even playing field that was put into place for all to adhere to, then the price gap that currently disadvantages Kuuma would be a lot closer than it is now from the investments the others would have to have made in improving their tech & getting the certifications. Sounds like Kuuma was committed to expanding even without knowing if others were about to release new improved units or not - but now knowing that the others all of a sudden won't have to is a definite cart upsetter.


----------



## leon (May 10, 2018)

I have said it before,

If the fireboxes were properly lined with firebrick on the sides and top and the standard fire brick was held in place with angle iron channels made from plain angle iron to allow it to be easily replaced by sliding it in and out when or if it cracks and breaks you would have very little to no smoke "ever". I did that an I never had issues with smoke after that when I burned wood and coal in the Switzer hand fed boiler I had. 
Working with fire brick is not that hard to do.
================================================================================



lampmfg said:


> First - I want to thank everyone for the support we receive on here!
> Second- There is a lot of excellent points that everyone has brought up regarding the testing and EPA regulations
> Third- It's tough for us to plan anything now.  We spent a lot of time, especially since 2013 when this stuff was really getting talked about deciding on how to move forward.   When this was finalized in 2015 we set-up our plan for testing to meet the 2017 deadline.  We could write a whole book on that process and being the guinea pigs.  While planning this out, we've been working with our city (Tower, MN) which has been in severe decline for many years and even lost the high school.  We are supposed to start building a modest new factory in the next month but now with this latest potential EPA set back it has been difficult to finalize.
> Fourth- Budget furnaces being sold at big box stores definitely affected our sales the past couple of years because I'm very confident if they hadn't come to the market we would be busy building furnaces 12 months a year instead of 6.  However, we stayed the course with our plan with our eyes on the big picture.  They made the decision to spend $ developing these new models every year and R & D'ing them on the public knowing they had no chance to be compliant with the 2020 regulations.  I think our pricing is currently very fair for what you get and if others can pass they will be priced similarly.





maple1 said:


> I don't think it was only a possible monopolistic factor at play here. Rather, if all the furnaces would be made to comply on that even playing field that was put into place for all to adhere to, then the price gap that currently disadvantages Kuuma would be a lot closer than it is now from the investments the others would have to have made in improving their tech & getting the certifications. Sounds like Kuuma was committed to expanding even without knowing if others were about to release new improved units or not - but now knowing that the others all of a sudden won't have to is a definite cart upsetter.


----------



## brenndatomu (May 10, 2018)

Firebrick is the secret, huh?


----------



## maple1 (May 10, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> Firebrick is the secret, huh?



Who knew?


----------



## STIHLY DAN (May 10, 2018)

DoubleB said:


> For those others of you who are preparing to skewer me, I'll just ask if you thought 5 years ago that the Caddy (became my Tundra) was an awful polluter. If you're honest and think it has been decent for its era, then can you propose what the emissions limits should be for 2023 and 2026, just so I can agree with you that manufacturers will have plenty of time to know and design for the new rules? And if you're not willing to propose what those limits should be 5 years from now, then why are you so hostilely defending the 5 year interval from 2015 to 2020?



Ok, !st off. In 1993 woodstoves got regulated for emissions to be clean burners. Only a Tard would think it wasn't going to extend to boilers and furnaces. It took 23 years for that to happen, which is unbelievable. All makers are so lucky it didnt happen in 2000 or so like it should have. So really all manufacturers had 27 YEARS to get it right. If they didn't, then they are greedy or STUPID. Probably both. Not only that but every other product consuming appliance has been regulated during this time. Cars, Appliances, lights, fossil fuels, insulation, water heaters, on and on everything. Wood furnaces and wood boilers ended up being last. So any manufacturer that can't pass the test DESERVES to fade away. This is actually a stupid argument because really there is nothing to argue about. Plus if you don't agree with this, you are WRONG!


----------



## brenndatomu (May 10, 2018)

maple1 said:


> Who knew?


Right?! All that big R n D money spent needlessly!  It been staring them in the face all along...all you need is a few magic firebricks


----------



## Highbeam (May 11, 2018)

Only a tard! A ri-tard! @STIHLY DAN

Regardless of post content, thanks for the laugh!


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 11, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Those are great advantages for the Kuuma. But you know what would be even better? It would really be great for Kuuma if all other furnaces were illegal to sell. That would make Kuuma the only choice and really the ultimate competitive advantage that was at stake here. Kuuma will continue to sell based on those other advantages but without the monopoly.
> 
> This isn't like one guy in an engineering class passing the test so the whole test gets thrown out. This is like the guy that graduated with an engineering degree compared to a engineering school dropout with a basket weaving degree.
> 
> As a potential furnace buyer, I would consider all options and all specifications including cost. The emissions being better than 2015 is no big deal and the efficiency is only so-so for any of the furnaces including kuuma. All other furnaces being off the market is a game changer advantage that was to be won by all other companies failing. Just like when all of the engineering school dropouts become basket weavers.


Such is the fickleness of government making regulations, in this case, industry regulations.  The leaders are political appointments, just like the FBI, CIA, ect.  Political appointments to political means.


----------



## E Yoder (May 11, 2018)

These regs came in through the courts and is a fluid situation. R&D is a gamble, you just don't know how far to go. Make the best unit you can and try to be as flexible as possible.
The uncertainty will make it very difficult for smaller manufacturers. The numbers are too low. This isn't like making water heaters or heat pumps where costs can be recouped in  few years. Lower cost fuel, a mild winter or two, new regulation... it's not been an easy road for any of the manufacturers from what I hear.


----------



## maple1 (May 11, 2018)

Didn't the regs come in through government?


----------



## brenndatomu (May 11, 2018)

E Yoder said:


> R&D is a gamble, you just don't know how far to go. Make the best unit you can and try to be as flexible as possible.


This sounds a little like doing the minimum...just enough to get a passing grade...Its true that the diploma for a D- student is the same as the A+ student...but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Why not just do your best? (within reason anyways) Instead of counting on "teach" grading on a curve...which Lamppa did not do. If the other manufacturers don't get an extension, or revision of the rules, they could be out of business...is that really worth the risk?
Sorry to keep using the school analogies...


----------



## E Yoder (May 11, 2018)

maple1 said:


> Didn't the regs come in through government?


The EPA put in the regs because of a court order. They were forced to do it by a certain date.


----------



## E Yoder (May 11, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> This sounds a little like doing the minimum...just enough to get a passing grade...Its true that the diploma for a D- student is the same as the A+ student...but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Why not just do your best? (within reason anyways) Instead of counting on "teach" grading on a curve...which Lamppa did not do. If the other manufacturers don't get an extension, or revision of the rules, they could be out of business...is that really worth the risk?
> Sorry to keep using the school analogies...



I applaud the ones like Lamppa who go for the best. We've pursued some very clean units too. I'm just saying pushing for the cleanest  is risky since it's regulation that's pushing it more than customer demand.


----------



## leon (May 15, 2018)

Fire brick absorbs the heat and slowly releases it back into the firebox. The hotter fire burns the smoke. 
They use a lot of standard firebrick in industrial steam boilers.


----------



## Mojappa (May 15, 2018)

leon said:


> Fire brick absorbs the heat and slowly releases it back into the firebox. The hotter fire burns the smoke.
> They use a lot of standard firebrick in industrial steam boilers.


My Fisher was loaded with firebricks, still smoked and burned inefficiently. Pretty sure seasoned wood and secondary tubes (except cat stoves) play a bigger role than fire bricks.


----------



## E Yoder (May 15, 2018)

Burning clean is a bit more complex than just one thing. Temperature, fuel/air mix, space to burn off... It's a combination of many factors, firebrick being a factor in temperature. My experience anyway.


----------



## S.Whiplash (May 22, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> This sounds a little like doing the minimum...just enough to get a passing grade...Its true that the diploma for a D- student is the same as the A+ student...but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Why not just do your best? (within reason anyways) Instead of counting on "teach" grading on a curve...which Lamppa did not do. If the other manufacturers don't get an extension, or revision of the rules, they could be out of business...is that really worth the risk?
> Sorry to keep using the school analogies...



Sadly many of the manufacturers themselves to not support the move to cleaner burning technology as it interferes with their quest to make more $$$ which is really their only interest.


----------



## brenndatomu (May 22, 2018)

S.Whiplash said:


> Sadly


Yes...


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 23, 2018)

S.Whiplash said:


> Sadly many of the manufacturers themselves to not support the move to cleaner burning technology as it interferes with their quest to make more $$$ which is really their only interest.


I would be willing to bet, that most people buy woodstoves to save money.  There is likely a very frugal buyer behind most purchases.  If that company wants to stay in business, perhaps they can't invest much with thin margins.  I don't know the margins, or the cyclical purchasing habits, but I'm willing to bet that it is a difficult and fickle business.  

Even with the stoves that don't burn as clean as they could, isn't it a good thing to get people burning less oil?  In most rural areas, the alternative is propane or oil.


----------



## bholler (Jul 9, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I would be willing to bet, that most people buy woodstoves to save money.  There is likely a very frugal buyer behind most purchases.  If that company wants to stay in business, perhaps they can't invest much with thin margins.  I don't know the margins, or the cyclical purchasing habits, but I'm willing to bet that it is a difficult and fickle business.
> 
> Even with the stoves that don't burn as clean as they could, isn't it a good thing to get people burning less oil?  In most rural areas, the alternative is propane or oil.


It may be better yes unless you live down wind of a smoke spewing beast.  The argument of cost doesnt hold water look at the englander freestanding stoves.  They burn clean and are fairly durable.  All while being much cheaper than most of the old smoke dragons of the 70s and 80s when you factor in inflation.  And if the furnaces had been working on it the whole time they could be there by now to.  

Oh and really the only option unavailable in rursl areas may be natural gas.  There are still many other options available.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 11, 2018)

bholler said:


> It may be better yes unless you live down wind of a smoke spewing beast.  The argument of cost doesnt hold water look at the englander freestanding stoves.  They burn clean and are fairly durable.  All while being much cheaper than most of the old smoke dragons of the 70s and 80s when you factor in inflation.  And if the furnaces had been working on it the whole time they could be there by now to.
> 
> Oh and really the only option unavailable in rursl areas may be natural gas.  There are still many other options available.



Yes and irrelevant from the topic being discussed.

We aren't comparing 70's to now.  We are comparing the last EPA ruling to the one that was supposed to be passed that the OP was lamenting.

I know it makes some people crazy that they can't control their neighbor burning sub-par wood, but you can't and you shouldn't be able to.  
Be careful what you wish for.  The next regulation will prevent you from burning all wood.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 11, 2018)

I can smell my dang neighbor barbecuing delicious meat many evenings when I’m out making noise mowing my lawn or washing my pickup. Smells, sights, sounds, of life that some people consider pollution.


----------



## E Yoder (Jul 11, 2018)

Reading over the comments to the 2015 NSPS, the majority of the negative feedback about wood stoves came from someone with a inconsiderate neighbor. The more we can get along the less cumbersome regulation encroaches into our lives.
Being a good neighbor is an investment worth making every time.
Any unit I've seen run that passes the 2015 standard can easily be operated without bothering anyone.


----------



## bholler (Jul 11, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Yes and irrelevant from the topic being discussed.
> 
> We aren't comparing 70's to now.  We are comparing the last EPA ruling to the one that was supposed to be passed that the OP was lamenting.
> 
> ...


It is not irrelevent because with tighter regs the stove get better it happens every time.  And every time there are guys complaining it will make stoves to expensive and to complicated.  Or that it is just one step away from banning wood burning.  It will be good for all of us as it has been in the past.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 12, 2018)

bholler said:


> It is not irrelevent because with tighter regs the stove get better it happens every time.  And every time there are guys complaining it will make stoves to expensive and to complicated.  Or that it is just one step away from banning wood burning.  It will be good for all of us as it has been in the past.



I sure wish they allowed the older diesel trucks to still be made. Emissions controls killed efficiency, durability, cost, and simplicity. Fuel injection on gas engines is pretty great though and mostly a side effect of stricter emissions controls.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 12, 2018)

bholler said:


> It is not irrelevent because with tighter regs the stove get better it happens every time.  And every time there are guys complaining it will make stoves to expensive and to complicated.  Or that it is just one step away from banning wood burning.  It will be good for all of us as it has been in the past.


There is nothing that prevents our hick neighbors from throwing green wood into that high end, clean burning stove.  The situation you described can happen regardless of stove selection, age, or price.


----------



## bholler (Jul 12, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> There is nothing that prevents our hick neighbors from throwing green wood into that high end, clean burning stove.  The situation you described can happen regardless of stove selection, age, or price.


Yes but they can be burnt cleanly if the person cares to.  The old ones couldnt be really.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 12, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> I sure wish they allowed the older diesel trucks to still be made. Emissions controls killed efficiency, durability, cost, and simplicity. Fuel injection on gas engines is pretty great though and mostly a side effect of stricter emissions controls.



So are inexpensive daily drivers that produce 100 hp per liter of displacement, something that you’d have never believed possible 40 years ago, and entirely thanks to elevated emissions standards.


----------



## brenndatomu (Jul 12, 2018)

Yeah I just don't see where being forced to clean things up is a bad thing...they sure as heck aren't gonna do it on their own apparently! Before the EPA stepped in back in 1988 on wood stoves, nothing much had changed since we first started using metal to contain a fire inside the home...what, 200 years?
Nobody would like it if the automotive industry never changed/upgraded...just think if the Mustang or Camaro in 2018 was the same as what we had in 1982...YUCK! 
And I know people squawk about added cost...I don't think there is much added expense to the manufacturers really...sure they jack up the price, but they are just using the EPA regs as an excuse to do so...the cost of just doing business today adds WAAAAY more to the price than any EPA emissions mandate.
The EPA regs have been good for wood stoves IMO...its time for wood furnaces and boilers to get on board too...


----------



## bholler (Jul 12, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> Yeah I just don't see where being forced to clean things up is a bad thing...they sure as heck aren't gonna do it on their own apparently! Before the EPA stepped in back in 1988 on wood stoves, nothing much had changed since we first started using metal to contain a fire inside the home...what, 200 years?
> Nobody would like it if the automotive industry never changed/upgraded...just think if the Mustang or Camaro in 2018 was the same as what we had in 1982...YUCK!
> And I know people squawk about added cost...I don't think there is much added expense to the manufacturers really...sure they jack up the price, but they are just using the EPA regs as an excuse to do so...the cost of just doing business today adds WAAAAY more to the price than any EPA emissions mandate.
> The EPA regs have been good for wood stoves IMO...its time for wood furnaces and boilers to get on board too...


The prices for stoves compliant with the 2020 standard didnt really go up much because of that.  In fact many stoves didnt have to change at all.  And as i said earlier when you look at the prices of stoves today factoring in inflation they really dont cost more than they did pre epa standards.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 12, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> Nobody would like it if the automotive industry never changed/upgraded...just think if the Mustang or Camaro in 2018 was the same as what we had in 1982...YUCK!



Hold on now, that junk in the 70s and 80s was a direct result of emissions and safety strangulation plus some pretty poor engineering to try and just barely pass the tests. Try comparing the machines from the 60s to the current ones. The new stuff is excellent but I wouldn't exactly say yuck about a nice 60s Camaro.


----------



## bholler (Jul 12, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Hold on now, that junk in the 70s and 80s was a direct result of emissions and safety strangulation plus some pretty poor engineering to try and just barely pass the tests. Try comparing the machines from the 60s to the current ones. The new stuff is excellent but I wouldn't exactly say yuck about a nice 60s Camaro.


Ok so my comparison of woodstove to wood furnaces was irrelevant but deisel trucks and muscle cars are?

And btw even the highest powered muscle cars stock from the 60s will get outrun my many run of the mill cars today.  While those new cars use a fraction of the gas and produce a fraction of the pollution.


----------



## bholler (Jul 12, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Hold on now, that junk in the 70s and 80s was a direct result of emissions and safety strangulation plus some pretty poor engineering to try and just barely pass the tests. Try comparing the machines from the 60s to the current ones. The new stuff is excellent but I wouldn't exactly say yuck about a nice 60s Camaro.


And btw when was the last time you drove a car from the 60s?  I drove one today and while i love them and think they are fun but compared to comperable modern stuff the driving experince is kind of yuck.


----------



## brenndatomu (Jul 12, 2018)

Manual drum brakes...and steering...yuck!



Highbeam said:


> Hold on now, that junk in the 70s and 80s was a direct result of emissions and safety strangulation plus some pretty poor engineering to try and just barely pass the tests. Try comparing the machines from the 60s to the current ones. The new stuff is excellent but I wouldn't exactly say yuck about a nice 60s Camaro.


Yeah, because they were just trying to skate by...just like a lot of the boiler and furnace makers are/were...and when squeezed it seems technology and improvements seem to miraculously appear, at least in certain industries.
And yeah, I gotta agree with bholler, the old muscle cars are fun to polish up and take to the car show...and maybe shoot down the strip once in a while...but commute, nah...I'll take a modern car any day. (or at least something made in the last 20 years)


----------



## Ashful (Jul 12, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Hold on now, that junk in the 70s and 80s was a direct result of emissions and safety strangulation plus some pretty poor engineering to try and just barely pass the tests. Try comparing the machines from the 60s to the current ones. The new stuff is excellent but I wouldn't exactly say yuck about a nice 60s Camaro.



You started off strong, but you lose me on that last sentence, Highbeam.  Next to today’s top of the model range products, a 1960’s Camaro is a turd, in absolutely every possible way.  

They win serious style and nostalgia points, but let’s not try to call them “good”.


http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/06...ter-than-corvette-ferrari-at-nurburgring.html


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Jul 12, 2018)

Ashful said:


> You started off strong, but you lose me on that last sentence, Highbeam.  Next to today’s top of the model range products, a 1960’s Camaro is a turd, in absolutely every possible way.
> 
> They win serious style and nostalgia points, but let’s not try to call them “good”.
> 
> ...



That article's old.  The ZR1 beats the ZL1.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 12, 2018)

JRHAWK9 said:


> That article's old.  The ZR1 beats the ZL1.


Yep... and they both beat any Camaro from 1969.


----------



## bholler (Jul 13, 2018)

Ashful said:


> Yep... and they both beat any Camaro from 1969.


I bet the v6 camaro would beat any 1969 one to.  It definatly would in turns


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 13, 2018)

Nostalgia does mean a lot to me. I like switching to high beams with the foot button and I like feeling the secondaries of the carb open through the throttle cable.


----------



## maple1 (Jul 14, 2018)

I'll take one of those '69s everyone is turning down. Please.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 14, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Nostalgia does mean a lot to me. I like switching to high beams with the foot button and I like feeling the secondaries of the carb open through the throttle cable.



Totally agreed, man.  I’m right there with you.  I’ve owned several classic hot rods, but my daily driver is modern.  The classics are fun, but not because they’re particularly good drivers, almost the opposite.  

BTW, @bholler, someone did a lateral g test on a 1969 Camaro SS, and achieved 0.81g.  No where near my new sedan, and I’m sure miles short of a Camaro ZL1.  The v6 Camaros  are cheapened up in every way, including suspension and tires, to hit low price points.  I’ll have to look up their numbers when I get a moment, but you may be right on them beating 0.81g.

Edit:  just looked them up:

Camaro ZL1 lateral = 1.11g
Camaro RS v6 lateral = 0.92g

Bholler is right!


----------



## bholler (Jul 14, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Nostalgia does mean a lot to me. I like switching to high beams with the foot button and I like feeling the secondaries of the carb open through the throttle cable.


I like all of that to.  Like i said i really enjoy classics.  But none of that makes those old care better performers in any way.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 14, 2018)

bholler said:


> I like all of that to.  Like i said i really enjoy classics.  But none of that makes those old care better performers in any way.



For sure. Performance of a 50 year old vehicle is obviously lower in just about every way.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 14, 2018)

So how can we apply this dialogue to our current furnace issue? 

The currently legal (2015+) furnace is pretty good. Like an automobile from the 2000 era. You can’t smell it when you’re driving behind it and people have a hard time dying when trying to run them in closed garages to kill themselves.

The new stuff will be even cleaner burning but nobody will notice. They will still see startup smoke and  see visible steam, see your wood pile and be jealous of the cheap heat so they will think you’re polluting. Due to low numbers of  People actually burning wood for heat I propose we’re already past “peak wood smoke pollution” and now it’s just the folks that don’t want any wood burning creating ever stricter regulations. Maybe?


----------



## brenndatomu (Jul 14, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> So how can we apply this dialogue to our current furnace issue?
> 
> The currently legal (2015+) furnace is pretty good. Like an automobile from the 2000 era. You can’t smell it when you’re driving behind it and people have a hard time dying when trying to run them in closed garages to kill themselves.
> 
> The new stuff will be even cleaner burning but nobody will notice. They will still see startup smoke and  see visible steam, see your wood pile and be jealous of the cheap heat so they will think you’re polluting. Due to low numbers of  People actually burning wood for heat I propose we’re already past “peak wood smoke pollution” and now it’s just the folks that don’t want any wood burning creating ever stricter regulations. Maybe?


Yeah the 2020 regs might be overkill...but prior to 2015 (2017) it was the wild wild west out there...something needed to be done to give the manufacturers still using caveman technology a kick in the rear...


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 14, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> Yeah the 2020 regs might be overkill...but prior to 2015 (2017) it was the wild wild west out there...something needed to be done to give the manufacturers still using caveman technology a kick in the rear...



Absolutely, but it is only fair to recognize that the newest 2015 regs have wet ink! 

Selfish note. None of these, not even the kuma are clean enough or legal for my state.


----------



## salecker (Jul 14, 2018)

Ashful said:


> Yep... and they both beat any Camaro from 1969.


I wouldn't say any Camaro from the 60's there have been some awesome builds on the old platform that will put any new North American car to shame.
 Lots of Money and about the only thing 60's is the body.
 Oh yea then there are the COPO Camaro's which are another story.


----------



## bholler (Jul 14, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> So how can we apply this dialogue to our current furnace issue?
> 
> The currently legal (2015+) furnace is pretty good. Like an automobile from the 2000 era. You can’t smell it when you’re driving behind it and people have a hard time dying when trying to run them in closed garages to kill themselves.
> 
> The new stuff will be even cleaner burning but nobody will notice. They will still see startup smoke and  see visible steam, see your wood pile and be jealous of the cheap heat so they will think you’re polluting. Due to low numbers of  People actually burning wood for heat I propose we’re already past “peak wood smoke pollution” and now it’s just the folks that don’t want any wood burning creating ever stricter regulations. Maybe?


Yes you are absolutly right 2015 compliant furnaces are much better than old ones.  But they can be better.  And without stricter regs most manufacturers will not innovate on their own.


----------



## bholler (Jul 14, 2018)

salecker said:


> I wouldn't say any Camaro from the 60's there have been some awesome builds on the old platform that will put any new North American car to shame.
> Lots of Money and about the only thing 60's is the body.
> Oh yea then there are the COPO Camaro's which are another story.


Even the copo camaros will get embarrassed by even moderate modern performane cars.  As an example my buddy has a 1969 judge which while far from a copo it was pretty fast for its day.  Just for fun i raced him in my wifes 2014 escape titanium with the 2.0 ecoboost.  And i easily beat him.  Oh and her car easily get mid 20s mpg.  Upper 20s on the highway.

That is the biggest difference the performace new cars get while burning clean and being able to get pretty good mpg is amazing.


----------



## woodey (Jul 14, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> Yeah the 2020 regs might be overkill


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Yeah, maybe overkill but achievable


----------



## Ashful (Jul 14, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> For sure. Performance of a 50 year old vehicle is obviously lower in just about every way.





Highbeam said:


> So how can we apply this dialogue to our current furnace issue?



New stoves are better than old stoves.  New furnaces are better than old furnaces.



salecker said:


> I wouldn't say any Camaro from the 60's there have been some awesome builds on the old platform that will put any new North American car to shame.


I was speaking factory vehicles.  But since you bring it up, I doubt that any build on any 1960's chassis will put a Dodge Demon or Camaro ZR1 to shame.  850+ horsepower in a package that exceeds 1g lateral is just hard to beat without millions of dollars of engineering effort.  I drive an SRT, and the handling just amazes me for a big 4300 lb. full-size sedan with a honking big 6.4L Hemi 392 under the hood.  Not the fastest car on earth, but it really is an amazing blend of performance characteristics, which I've never achieved in any of my home-grown builds.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 14, 2018)

Ashful said:


> New stoves are better than old stoves.  New furnaces are better than old furnaces.
> 
> 
> I was speaking factory vehicles.  But since you bring it up, I doubt that any build on any 1960's chassis will put a Dodge Demon or Camaro ZR1 to shame.  850+ horsepower in a package that exceeds 1g lateral is just hard to beat without millions of dollars of engineering effort.  I drive an SRT, and the handling just amazes me for a big 4300 lb. full-size sedan with a honking big 6.4L Hemi 392 under the hood.  Not the fastest car on earth, but it really is an amazing blend of performance characteristics, which I've never achieved in any of my home-grown builds.



The situation at hand isn’t about new furnaces vs. old ones. You can buy some new stuff that is junk! This thread started about those (the) furnace meeting a 2020 standard vs. those meeting the 2015 regulations. Is the incremental improvement in emissions required by those 2020 regulations worth the cost of removing all other furnaces from the market? 

Myself, I don’t think so. It speaks volumes that there were no requirements for furnaces to meet any emissions criteria for the last 100 years and suddenly we have a rapid progression of tight and new criteria that leave only one very small vendor compliant. 

I like clean air and appreciate a clear smoke plume. I would like emissions regulations that are driven by actual necessary air quality levels and not just as clean as possible.


----------



## bholler (Jul 14, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> The situation at hand isn’t about new furnaces vs. old ones. You can buy some new stuff that is junk! This thread started about those (the) furnace meeting a 2020 standard vs. those meeting the 2015 regulations. Is the incremental improvement in emissions required by those 2020 regulations worth the cost of removing all other furnaces from the market?
> 
> Myself, I don’t think so. It speaks volumes that there were no requirements for furnaces to meet any emissions criteria for the last 100 years and suddenly we have a rapid progression of tight and new criteria that leave only one very small vendor compliant.
> 
> I like clean air and appreciate a clear smoke plume. I would like emissions regulations that are driven by actual necessary air quality levels and not just as clean as possible.


No it started because they decided to change the rules after the responsible companies had already put the money into meeting those regulations which they had been told were set in stone.  

You bring up the fact that there were no emissions regs on them for hundreds of years until 2015.  And how many companies innovated on their own to clean up their furnaces????


----------



## brenndatomu (Jul 14, 2018)

I guess this is all it takes to get some traffic 'round here in the summertime...a lil discussion about the EPA, stoves, and hotrods!


----------



## salecker (Jul 15, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> I guess this is all it takes to get some traffic 'round here in the summertime...a lil discussion about the EPA, stoves, and hotrods!


Add some pictures of the ladys and it would be flat out


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 16, 2018)




----------



## Ashful (Jul 16, 2018)

Seasoned Oak said:


> View attachment 227912


Graphs like this need to come with a disclaimer.  Of course China and South Korea emissions are way up, they’ve both boomed from peasant agricultural economies to major world powers, over the last two decades.  And of course our decrease is larger than other countries whose footprint was never but a small fraction of our own, to begin with.

The one that surprises me is the EU.  There must be more to that story, as the Europeans have been really at the forefront of emissions reduction efforts.

The graph needs to be scaled according to GNP or some other suitable figure of merit, to really make any sense of it.


----------



## lampmfg (Jul 16, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> Absolutely, but it is only fair to recognize that the newest 2015 regs have wet ink!
> 
> Selfish note. None of these, not even the kuma are clean enough or legal for my state.



Do have a link to what is legal or clean enough for your state?  Thanks,


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 16, 2018)

lampmfg said:


> Do have a link to what is legal or clean enough for your state?  Thanks,



https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Smoke-fire/wood-stove-info

This page has the information but the site won't let me click through to the list. There were a couple of boilers (garn, etc.) but no furnaces clean enough.

I'll keep looking. Seems WA likes to regulate based on GPH and the rest of the furnace world likes a different method.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 16, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Smoke-fire/wood-stove-info
> 
> This page has the information but the site won't let me click through to the list. There were a couple of boilers (garn, etc.) but no furnaces clean enough.
> 
> I'll keep looking. Seems WA likes to regulate based on GPH and the rest of the furnace world likes a different method.



When using my phone I can click through and find only four wood fired furnaces meeting WA standards and the Kuma is not on the list. I don't know what it takes to be accepted but Kuma hasn't done it.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 16, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Smoke-fire/wood-stove-info
> 
> This page has the information but the site won't let me click through to the list. There were a couple of boilers (garn, etc.) but no furnaces clean enough.
> 
> I'll keep looking. Seems WA likes to regulate based on GPH and the rest of the furnace world likes a different method.


Hey... stop trying to steer our thread away from hotrods and classic cars!


----------



## lampmfg (Jul 17, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> When using my phone I can click through and find only four wood fired furnaces meeting WA standards and the Kuma is not on the list. I don't know what it takes to be accepted but Kuma hasn't done it.



I read the criteria and their approved list.  

https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/1c/1cd08b6c-a609-4a70-b861-5d75a3ed547c.pdf

We are much cleaner than any of them and are in the process of reaching out to make sure we get added to this.  Unfortunate that we even have to do that when the list has been on the EPA site for nearly a year.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/usepa-certified-forced-air-furnace-list.xlsx


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 17, 2018)

Ashful said:


> Hey... stop trying to steer our thread away from hotrods and classic cars!



When mr lamp himself speaks up, in his thread, I am happy to momentarily get back on topic!

Looks like Washington does respect the wonky emissions rate per unit energy of the furnace world but maybe requires softwood?


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 17, 2018)

lampmfg said:


> I read the criteria and their approved list.
> 
> https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/1c/1cd08b6c-a609-4a70-b861-5d75a3ed547c.pdf
> 
> ...



As we’ve known for decades, the federal epa requirement is a minimum. Washington can and has required something cleaner for stoves as well. 

Thank you for trying to get on the list.


----------



## lampmfg (Jul 17, 2018)

Highbeam said:


> When mr lamp himself speaks up, in his thread, I am happy to momentarily get back on topic!
> 
> Looks like Washington does respect the wonky emissions rate per unit energy of the furnace world but maybe requires softwood?



No clue, we are waiting to hear back from them.


----------



## brenndatomu (Jul 17, 2018)

lampmfg said:


> I read the criteria and their approved list.
> 
> https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/1c/1cd08b6c-a609-4a70-b861-5d75a3ed547c.pdf
> 
> ...


What's really scary is that the FC1000 is on the WA. approved list! Anybody that followed that poor guys saga that bought one here this past winter knows what a scary, creosote makin, public health and fire hazard those things are!


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 17, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> What's really scary is that the FC1000 is on the WA. approved list! Anybody that followed that poor guys saga that bought one here this past winter knows what a scary, creosote makin, public health and fire hazard those things are!



I looked over the fire chief offerings today since they qualify for Washington. I am optimistic that we should have access to all furnaces that meet the 2015 regs just as soon as the manufacturer jumps through some hoops. The nc30 is pretty good for a stove but I need more power for heating up the workshop intermittently.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Jul 17, 2018)

brenndatomu said:


> What's really scary is that the FC1000 is on the WA. approved list! Anybody that followed that poor guys saga that bought one here this past winter knows what a scary, creosote makin, public health and fire hazard those things are!




I think I found the prototype FC1000 during the design phase.


----------



## woodey (Jul 18, 2018)

JRHAWK9 said:


> I think I found the prototype FC1000 during the design phase.




The EPA approves this message.


----------

