New Sirocco 30.2 being installed - catalyst is damaged, should I ask for a replacement?

[rdrcrmatt]

As the title says, the installers are finishing up the install today. The cat still has the tape from shipping on it. I know it is a small spot, but should I ask that this be fixed / replaced? The catalyst shield is still tied to the bottom of the stove with twine. I'm not quite sure how this could have happened in shipping. What are your thoughts?

 

[Todd]

I’d remove the cat and look at the other side for any other damage but if that’s the only spot I wouldn’t worry about it.

 

[GG Woody]

Any more pics?
I ordered a Scirocco 30.2 this week, I told them no hurry, and inside I'm already getting impatient! I'm really excited to see it and touch it...
I wouldn't be too concerned about that bit of damage but I'd surely pass an inquiry along to where you purchased it from.
Good luck, I'm excited about your purchase!

 

[stoveliker]

I would contact BK, and be gentle; of course it's not supposed to happen, but I don't think it'll be an issue.
Nevertheless, BK might want to know so that they can avoid it from happening again.
Pics of how you found the thing in the stove etc. would be good for reference.

I don't think it's a problem. But I'd let BK decide that.

On the other hand, it looks like the cat frame is a bit rusty? That would be a bit surprising to me.

Anyway, congrats on the install. You can start burning like this without performance being affected in a noticeable way, I think.
If they ship a new cat, it's easy to swap out (they should ship a gasket with it).

 

[stoveliker]

Any more pics?
I ordered a Scirocco 30.2 this week, I told them no hurry, and inside I'm already getting impatient! I'm really excited to see it and touch it...
I wouldn't be too concerned about that bit of damage but I'd surely pass an inquiry along to where you purchased it from.
Good luck, I'm excited about your purchase!

touching your stove - you can do that, but only when it's empty ...
Congrats.

 

[kborndale]

If I pay for something brand new and undamaged I expect something brand new and undamaged. Maybe that's just me.

 

[Highbeam]

Be careful that BK doesn’t try and warranty this cat out using your “one free” cat.

 

[BKVP]

It won't have any effect at all on performance. You can speak with your dealer. We can log it as freight damage to quell concerns. But, I can assure you a finger probably pressed there during install, just like car radiators can have it happen.

You could also ask dealer to use small screwdriver and bend the metal straight. It's ultra thin and easy forms or in this case deforms.

We're happy to make you happy.

BKVP

 

[Tron]

You could also ask dealer to use small screwdriver and bend the metal straight. It's ultra thin and easy forms or in this case deforms.

I was just about to say, that's exactly how I would go at this. But as BKVP said, not a performance issue, just cosmetical.

 

[Mustard Tiger]

Nothing to add about your concern with the cat, but wanted to say congrats on the Sirocco 30.2! Had a wood stove installed as the first big project after I bought my home back in March. Only had a chance to have two or three burns, but it was fantastic! Eagerly awaiting it to get cold so I can really start using it.

 

[Highbeam]

And on that 30.2, check out the latest EPA list updates. The 30.2 tested very well. Beats the princess now at 83% efficient.

 

[Mustard Tiger]

Also forgot to mention, the stove I got was also a Sirocco 30.2!

 

[stoveliker]

Question is whether that was testing variability or whether they changed the design a bit without changing the model number. I have a 30.2 as well but back when that was manufactured the testing efficiency was below that of the princess.

 

[BKVP]

Testing variability sort of. When testing, we have 4 burn rates. Low, medium low, medium high and high.

Each of these burn rates are predicated upon "x" kg/h to "x" kg/h.

All manufacturers KNOW to get best results, you want to hit a specific rate of consumption. High is easy, you must open air control completely.

Generally, catalytic models want to hit the lowest possible in each range as residence rate usually produces best outcome.

Secondary combustion units usually want to burn at the higher end of each range for best results.

For all mfgs, We hate it when we don't hit the targeted burn rate. The result can really negatively effect results.

You know, I was thinking of doing a virtual Hearth.com call for anyone that wanted to ask questions relating to test methods, compliance, tax credits, installation and safety points and more. If anyone thinks this is a good idea, I'll discuss with Hearth management/ownership. I might be able to get a test lab guy to participate or even an EPA staff person. Thoughts?

BKVP

 

[stoveliker]

I'd be interested in listening in.

 

[MattA311]

And on that 30.2, check out the latest EPA list updates. The 30.2 tested very well. Beats the princess now at 83% efficient.

Do you have a link to that?

 

[BKVP]

Link in this snip..

 

[MattA311]

Link in this snip..

View attachment 330608

That’s very interesting, thank you.

 

[BKVP]

That’s very interesting, thank you.

We burn wood and it is inherently variable. Add to that different elevations of test labs, operating technicians, range of moisture content, range of burn rates etc. We as an industry have responded to regulation every time. We are at a point of diminishing return, cost versus emissions reduction benefit.

Some something a simple as a wood stove, there entire testing portion is exceedingly complex....and costly.

BKVP

 

[stoveliker]

I am disappointed in the fact that numbers are communicated as "the" numbers when evidently the confidence interval is significant.

@BKVP : Do they run one test to get this number?
If more than one (sorry, cost goes up...), they should communicate the average + 95% confidence interval, or at least the standard deviation.

Of course that affects the rules (which one complies and which one does not), but that's what any person taking data knows: if the target value falls within that statistical error margin, you DID meet the target, even if the average is lower than the numerical target (i.e. a target of 75% is met when you have 74% +/- 2%. And I suspect the interval here is more like +/- 5%...)

 

[BKVP]

I am disappointed in the fact that numbers are communicated as "the" numbers when evidently the confidence interval is significant.

@BKVP : Do they run one test to get this number?
If more than one (sorry, cost goes up...), they should communicate the average + 95% confidence interval, or at least the standard deviation.

Of course that affects the rules (which one complies and which one does not), but that's what any person taking data knows: if the target value falls within that statistical error margin, you DID meet the target, even if the average is lower than the numerical target (i.e. a target of 75% is met when you have 74% +/- 2%. And I suspect the interval here is more like +/- 5%...)

M28R is 5 different runs. Low, medium low, medium high and high. The fifth run is called the fan confirmation run and has no influence on the overall values of efficiency/emissions/co or anything else.

The newest methods (which I am fly to next week with EPA) is the IDC or integrated duty cycle. This test method involves a cold start, 4 hot loads. The repeating the same exact platform twice more. The idea of replicates is to proves a wood heater can provide repeatable performance.

These are great questions. That is why I was thinking of a virtual session for folks such as yourself to participate. A better understanding in this community only advances the skills and expertise offered to others.

I've met with a few folks from the forums over the years for a drink or two and had excellent dialogue.

BKVP

 

[bigealta]

The diminishing returns problem. I remember that with particulate filtration.
From Bag house filtration to cyclone to electrostatic filters. The finer the size you needed filtered to, the exponentially higher the cost of the filtration system.
Gets to the point where just a tiny bit of "extra" or "additional" filtration costs such a massive amount of money that it's unfeasible.