Another large stove thread...Alderlea T6, Progress Hybrid, something else?

[rideau]

There is no "disassembling" to clean the PH cat.

You swing up the griddle top and rest it in its groove at the middle-back of the stove top. Slip the cat out, take it outside and brush the surface with a paint brush, reinsert after flipping 180 degrees to even wear.

Takes maybe 5 minutes.

Many folks don't need to do this at all...I think most who do have to have both a tall chimney and no ashbox.

If the PH is the stove you want, you'd be making a mistake not buying it because of the cat.

The stove not only puts out a lot of heat, it is also very efficient. I burn the same amount of wood I used in the much smaller Fireview, and get a lot more heat. This stove is very good at delivering to the living space the heat it generates...very little goes up the flue.

 

[JoeOxfordCT]

Ok, here's the updates.... Yesterday I went to Superior Hearth Spas & Leisure to look at stoves. I bought my Jotul F600 there in 2003. I send my Dad there and he bought a pellet insert. I sent a friend there and he bought the Jotul FC3B. Several years ago we bought a gas fireplace for our old house. I have always had good experience with the business. Because of my hearth limitations we primarily looked at the (broken link removed to http://jotul.com/us/products/stoves/jotul-f-500-oslo#technical-area). It's a very nice stove. I am already very familiar with Jotul because of my 10 years experience with the F600. Here are my Pros/Cons:

Jotul F500 Oslo

Pro

• Takes up to 24" logs (I just cut some wood and on "auto-pilot" much of it is 20"... )
• Familiarity with both Jotul brand & Superior Hearth
• Low maintainence non-catalytic system
• Able to use with screen for early/late season "romance" fires.
• Will easily connect to existing hearth with or without use of short legs.
• Less expensive then Progress Hybrid ($2900 w/screen, short legs, tax, delivered & set on my hearth)

Con

• Not sure if it puts out enough heat for my house ?
• Older less efficient technology burn system ? (Not sure...?)

Woodstock Progress Hybrid

Pro

• Will definitely throw enough heat for my house (2,220sqft)
• More efficient burn system - More heat from same amount of wood.
• Soapstone & extra mass (700lbs vs. 445lbs Jotul) with retain heat longer.
• I can drive to NH to pick up and save CT sales tax ($200)

Con

• Have to drive to NH to pickup & install myself
• Extra maintenance with cat system ? (This can be argued no doubt but for now, more work than non-cat system)
• Will only fit existing hearth with short legs - meaning no ash pan
• More expensive - price from their site $3200.
• No screen for "romance" fires.....(not a biggie but...)

 

[mainewoodburning]

so why not a F600, F50, or F55?

 

[JoeOxfordCT]

so why not a F600, F50, or F55?

I need rear venting that will fit into a 6" thimble that is 24" to center off the hearth floor.

 

[mainewoodburning]

i know the f50 does rear vent. Not sure if they have short legs but i would ask. You are only 2" off. Oh and its 6"

 

[mainewoodburning]

I was looking at the f500. Glad I went with the F50. I was told it would be too hot. When it was bellow 0 I was glad I had the larger stove!

 

[daleeper]

Wow, tough choice. Dealing with a local dealer you have had previous good luck with, for a stove that promises romance and cost less, verses new burn technology from what most folks would consider a great soapstone stove company. and one big beautiful hunk of stove

Some say always go with romance, and some say go big or don't go at all. Which will it be?

Personally, I can't see loosing with either choice, but would go with the bigger stove, as I see no advantage at all to the screens in the door for open fires, and I like a cat stove, they have less maintenance requirements than anyone you are trying to romance.

 

[rideau]

Also, there is really zero maintenance on Woodstock stoves. Things don't break on them, they are not fragile. Changing a cat every five or more years, cleaning it from time to time is no big deal. The cats are extremely accessible and easy to remove, clean or replace and reinsert. They cost way less than the tome you save in wood processing by their increased efficiency. I wouldn't personally want a non-cat.

I believe cats are a non-issue in terms of cons. At least, they are with the Woodstocks, which is where my personal experience with cats is. Our woodstove when I was growing up was a massive cookstove...massive. ( Unfortunately, my aunt gave it away just shortly after I built. I had no idea the stove was being taken out of the kitchen. Was still in beautiful shape, used daily. Was from before the depression. My great=grandfather bought it. )

 

[begreen]

i know the f50 does rear vent. Not sure if they have short legs but i would ask. You are only 2" off. Oh and its 6"

I believe the F50 has a reversible flue collar for a rear venting option. The F500 would do the job well. Or lower the hearth and increase options.

 

[JoeOxfordCT]

....I like a cat stove, they have less maintenance requirements than anyone you are trying to romance.

Best line of the whole day ! ....and pretty much true....

 

[firefighterjake]

Random thoughts . . .

I think you cannot go wrong with either a Jotul or a Woodstock stove . . . both are very well liked here with many real life users and fans (fanatics?) of both brands.

I think you may do OK with the Oslo . . . but at 2,200 square feet I think you may be close to its limits. Perhaps folks with homes larger than mine in your area (I'm coming from a 1970s, two-story, 1,800 square foot cape here in Maine so changing those variables -- going further south, better insulated home, size of the home, etc. -- can change things.

I will say I don't think the Oslo is particularly inefficient . . . just not as efficient perhaps as a stove that uses a cat. It's not like it's using technology from the 1800s. That said, the only real way to get those crazily long burns are with cat stoves . . . but you can do overnight fires with large enough secondary burners . . . which is good, otherwise I would have a tough time of it.

Ash pan . . . I wouldn't let this be a deciding factor. If you come from a stove that had a useful, functional ash pan, it's understandable that it may be a consideration. However, folks who have stoves without ash pans typically do not mind the loss of the ash pan. That said, I know I would miss having an ash pan as the Oslo's ash pan is nice.

Screen . . . this is one feature I would not even bring into the equation. Like a lot of folks I thought about this as well . . . I mean the idea of having a fireplace like experience in my woodstove . . . what's not to like . . . until you see that nice view of the fire, hear the snapping and crackling and feel the heat . .. and then you realize that buying an expensive item like a screen that folks who have bought say is rarely used is not all that needed or desirable.

Maintenance . . . a non-issue. All stoves need some maintenance . . . I think you will find most cat users will say the occasional brushing off or vacuuming of the cat is a quick, simple procedure . . . and for many having to replace the cat in X number of years is a good trade off for being able to get those super long, low burns in the Fall and Spring as they can save money on the wood usage.

Reliability . . . I would say this is a wash. Both Jotul and Woodstock are near legendary for their reliable stoves. One plus is Woodstock's habit of sending free replacement parts when issues are found with newer stoves . . . this says a lot about a company when it finds an issue or improves on itself and remembers its past customers.

Customer service . . . Woodstock's customer service is legendary . . . and their parties are pretty fine as well. With Jotul I suspect it would come down more to your experience with the dealership which seems to be pretty good.

Wood length . . . sure, it may take some time to zing down the wood smaller if need be . . . but I would not let this potential one time event be the deciding factor for a stove that I would be using for many, many years.

One thing that may not have been mentioned . . . the hearth . . . what is the hearth you have currently and will it meet the R-value requirements for both stoves or will it need to be beefed up?

Final thought . . . as stated before . . . I don't think you can go wrong with either company. Both manufacturers and models are pretty darn nice. Truthfully, if I didn't love my Oslo so much I would probably have sprung for the PH.

 

[JoeOxfordCT]

Thanks Jake for taking the time to write such a nice long reply. To be honest... I had sort of forgotten all about the screen thing except the has a stove at superior burning with the screen while I was there is it is nice to hear & see the fire. I had bought the screen for my F600 but it always seem to send too much smoke into the house for me...? In the end I never used it. Like I said, not a biggie....

As far a the hearth is concerned, I plan to run (especially if I get the PH) a header underneath the floor joist in the basement under the hearth with some posts down to the slab floor for some extra piece of mind.

I have heard nothing but good things about the customer service from Woodstock and believe my own experience would be no different.

 

[firefighterjake]

Joe . . . when I mentioned the hearth I was partly thinking about the weight . . . but also thinking about what you have currently for the hearth and what the PH requires for a hearth.

What I am trying to say in such a round-about way is that with many Jotul stoves -- including the Oslo -- only ember protection is needed so pretty much any non-combustible material can be used (i.e. slab, slate, brick, etc.) whereas some woodstoves require more protection (i.e. air space, insulation, etc.)

While making a hearth is not a really difficult thing to do and I suspect from the sounds of it you would be more than capable of building a hearth if need be . . . and again . . . I am not sure if the PH has a specific R value requirement. . . but you should be aware that for some stoves the existing hearth may or may not work.

 

[begreen]

From the look of it the hearth is going to be too shallow for a wood stove anyhow. If so, I would rebuild instead of tacking on an extension. That will provide a more uniform look and will allow you to control the height. Remember that you want the horiz. connector to be pitched uphill toward the chimney at least 1/4" per ft. A little more pitch won't hurt if possible.

 

[madison]

From the look of it the hearth is going to be too shallow for a wood stove anyhow. If so, I would rebuild instead of tacking on an extension. That will provide a more uniform look and will allow you to control the height. Remember that you want the horiz. connector to be pitched uphill toward the chimney at least 1/4" per ft. A little more pitch won't hurt if possible.

Great advice from both Jake and BG

 

[JoeOxfordCT]

Morning Gents, thanks for the responses. The current hearth projects 42" into the room by 53" across the back. I was planning for top, front, or left loading, preferably top or left though. I am not quite sure I understand about the R-value of the hearth. If the stove has non-combustible clearances and I can meet them then what am I missing ? I will have to be careful when loading about burning embers falling out but that's a given regardless ? I really did not want to increase the footprint of the hearth into an already somewhat narrow (13'), albeit long (46') area.

 

[begreen]

All clearances are to combustible surfaces only. But with only 42" depth the Oslo won't make it. You might take a look at the Woodstock Fireview. It is side-load only and needs only 8" of hearth in front of the glass. Or go back to considering raising the thimble. That way you can install a stove with it's back right to the masonry and top vent it.

 

[jzinckgra]

Morning Gents, thanks for the responses. The current hearth projects 42" into the room by 53" across the back. I was planning for top, front, or left loading, preferably top or left though. I am not quite sure I understand about the R-value of the hearth. If the stove has non-combustible clearances and I can meet them then what am I missing ? I will have to be careful when loading about burning embers falling out but that's a given regardless ? I really did not want to increase the footprint of the hearth into an already somewhat narrow (13'), albeit long (46') area.

F50 has top and side load. Also, in another post, you said something about needing rear stove pipe outlet. F55 has either top or rear. F50, I think as both options too. FYI, check CL for used or new Jotuls. I got my my F55 brand new on crate from a local guy for $1600.

 

[firefighterjake]

Morning Gents, thanks for the responses. The current hearth projects 42" into the room by 53" across the back. I was planning for top, front, or left loading, preferably top or left though. I am not quite sure I understand about the R-value of the hearth. If the stove has non-combustible clearances and I can meet them then what am I missing ? I will have to be careful when loading about burning embers falling out but that's a given regardless ? I really did not want to increase the footprint of the hearth into an already somewhat narrow (13'), albeit long (46') area.

Clearances to combustibles and the R-value or insulation value of the hearth on which the stove rests are two different items. Some stoves require only ember protection . . . other stoves need a bit more for a hearth. The issue deals partly with the chance of hot embers spilling out (even the most careful person has this happen), but also on the heat conducting down through to any combustibles underneath . . . if the stove were on a cement slab with nothing combustible underneath of course this would make it a non issue. When you narrow down your choices owners should be able to give you more info on clearances and what is required for a hearth.

 

[JoeOxfordCT]

Thanks guys....yeah, just got off the phone with Woodstock. Progress Hybrid won't fit my current hearth because of side clearances more than anything.....sounds like the F500 won't either. Beginning to look like I have some hearth modifications in my future.....

I think raising the thimble will be the first thing I look at. I don't really have room to extend the hearth left or right. I can bring it forward some if need be.... The rough opening to the right of the stove is going to be closed down to a half wall left & right with a walk through in the middle.

How about if I added little partial masonary kneewalls coming out from the hearth wall ? At this point I may as well just take the whole hearth & hearth wall out and start from scratch. Trouble is I can only widen the hearth wall about 12" to the right making it 67" from 53".

 

[begreen]

Yes, I was starting to come to the same conclusion. The current hearth will not accommodate a large modern stove. What if the new hearth was flush or near flush with the floor? Even if it rose up 1/2" above the floor a 2-3"wide, flat, beveled trim would eliminate tripping potential.

 

[rideau]

For what it's worth, Woodstock sells a prefab hearth pad that is 60 inches wide, 48 inches deep, has front corners cut at 45 degrees, is 1 1/2 inches high, and provides the hearth protection required for Woodstock stoves.

I bought one in 2004 for my Fireview, am using the same one for my PH (Woodstock tweaked the PH until they had it where it tested to accommodate the Fireview setup, specifically for the convenience of Fireview owners who were stepping up to a PH).

My surface is a dark blue marbleized tile, light grey metallic stove. Very attractive, and the hearth pad looks as nice as the day I got it. It just sits on top of my wide board white oak floor. The cut off corners are great, as one does not stub one's toe when walking near the stove. Plus, the appearance is more attractive.

If you have to remove or renovate your hearth anyway for a modern stove, you could remove the bricks, finish the floor to the level of the wood and sit a prefab pad on top, or you could cut out the wood to the size of the pad and insert it.

You can get a pad custom made from Woodstock as well; if you elected to do that and got the ash lip on the front of the stove, then you can significantly cut the front to back dimension needed for the pad.

Just a thought. If you want the PH, call Woodstock back and discuss with them the possibilities re converting your hearth to one that is acceptable for the PH, looking for minimal work necessary and minimal cost, or whatever your requirements are. They'll be quite willing to work through that with you.

 

[ksc]

"if you elected to do that and got the ash lip on the front of the stove, then you can significantly cut the front to back dimension needed for the pad."

You can"t use the 8" front clearance if you use the short legs

 

[JoeOxfordCT]

Thanks guys ! I had two calls with Woodstock today. I just called a mason to have him come look at the existing hearth. It's a shame because Lauren from Woodstock said my existing hearth is actually pretty close to working. However, if I move the thimble up so I can use the regular legs and extend the hearth a bit, it will work fine. My own thought is that at that point I might as well see what it would cost to replace the hearth & hearth wall if I do all the demo & prep work. As an ex-carpenter I tend towards "tear it out and start from scratch" rather than "patch & hope it blends". We'll see.

 

[georgepds]

I am reading more & more on the Woodstock Progress Hybrid. ... In fact the scary part now becomes getting it into the house & onto the hearth. ....

I punted, by hiring a moving company to take it from the freight terminal to the house. I think it cost ~$300, the mover showed up with 6 men. They uncrated it and fastened on the legs (I provided the socket wrench)