I'm so grateful I read a couple forums prior to purchasing my furnace. The Tundra did have shortcomings from the factory but I knew that going in and I built a system that makes it work incredibly well. I don't know how these guys are able to keep their cool dealing with these Firechief death traps.
Fire Chief FC1000 year 2
- Thread starter Mrpelletburner
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
So you aren’t in the market for a used FC? Just asking [emoji41]
LOL! You're a better man than I.
The only suitable use for that POS is at the scrap yard.
JRHAWK9
Minister of Fire
Just in case you guys running these Hy-C things want to upgrade for cheap. 
![[Hearth.com] Fire Chief FC1000 year 2](https://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/upload_2019-1-6_10-19-43-webp.237561/ "[Hearth.com] Fire Chief FC1000 year 2")
Had a 2hr call with HY-C on Friday. Going on almost a year and they are still working with me, trying to get things right. Their prior stove line had a great reputation, seems like they trying to go the distance to get back to that point.
Mojappa
Burning Hunk
One would think the first thing they’d suggest would be a barometric damper to get your draft in check.....lol
They’re VERY adamant that the stove should not have a barometric damper connected. The design of the stove should prevent a high draft. I don’t know enough of the design to argue the point. Therefore the only thing I can do is work with them, provide data, and hope they can get the stove to deliver the advertised burn times.
Last edited:
Mojappa
Burning Hunk
I don't see how they can say that. According to the EPA testing, if the unit was tested at .06" of water column and the furnace is installed with a chimney producing .10"+ of water column, how can they claim it's made to run without a barometric damper? One would believe the furnace would need to run within specs of the emissions testing? It makes zero sense.
Mojappa
Burning Hunk
Maybe they secretly installed a baro inside the stove and just don’t wanna tell anybody? Hahaha. It really is mind blowing seeing the approach they’re taking.
JRHAWK9
Minister of Fire
I agree, Lamppa can't change anything after passing their phase 2 testing. They can't even sell the water coil with them anymore because it was not in place when they were certified.
Along those same lines, I also don't understand how these cat stoves can become certified either. It's well known the cat starts to degrade immediately and over time it is shot and needs to be replaced. So, assuming they were tested with a brand new cat, this means at what point does it fall out of compliance? Then they have the bypass, which the end user can use to bypass the cat at any point. Without a cat, these things are not much more than a barrel stove.
Wood furnaces are testing at three distinct burn levels and are done to simulate all conditions in which the end user will use them. This includes forcing the furnace to burn at a very low heat output level. Once compliance has been achieved then they are not allowed to change anything; meanwhile these cat stoves have a simple lever they can pull to bypass the cat and the cat is also in the constant state of degradation. By design they are in a constant state of change!
Personally, I know I'm glad I don't own a cat equipped wood burning anything. With my personality, wanting to achieve/maintain maximum efficiency, I could see myself replacing the cat every year or at any initial sign of degradation....whatever interval that would be.
Last edited:
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
Can't agree enough! They have figured out how to get these things to pass the EPA test...but that is not how they actually get run in the real world...and no where near the burn times they claim! (read the EPA test report) And it completely blows my mind that that they got the FC1000 to pass at all! The good thing is that if they are still in the wood furnace game in 2020, they will either have to get their crap together, or be gone!
See, this is why I think that the FC "engineers" are a bunch of college grad newbs (or maybe they flunked out of college
) you have to control your draft!! It is the engine that drives the stove!! Not the other way around!!If controlling the chimney draft with the furnace was possible (or a good idea) wouldn't a computer controlled Kuuma do that?!
Or one of the many European lambda units...none of them control the chimney draft via the furnace (boiler) either!
Heck, Kuuma even supply's the baro with the furnace.
I'm starting to build a callous on my forehead from reading these FC guys responses/ideas
Like Laynes said, makes ZERO sense!
You need to be on their payroll...you are doing R n D for them...
Last edited:
Similar threads
