Front load, top load, side load...advantages??

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

eclecticcottage

Minister of Fire
Dec 7, 2011
1,803
WNY
Is there an advantage to one over another? I prefer the front load, it seems less likely for me to burn myself loading this way (I wear gloves but I'm a born klutz). I was actually looking at the Progress, but then realized it was a side load only and we're not set up hearth pad/stack wise to accept the clearances of a side loader. (I don't plan on replacing the Lopi any time soon, but I had the sister of my stove-the Endeavor-on my "wish list" for about 10 years now, so I was thinking ahead to the day I might want to replace this one, especially for longer burn times). It made me wonder why all these options exist-is it preference, or is there really a valid reason (better burn times somehow, etc)?
 
I went from a top loading VC to a side loading Jotul. The side loading takes a little time to get used to, I think. I like the top loading better. No bending over. I find it easier to position splits in the firebox from the top. Maybe I'm just paranoid but I'm always afraid I'm going to bang a split into the burn tubes at the top of my Oslo. I just placed splits in from the top of the old VC like a game of tetris.
All that said, I prefer top loading, but not by much. Its not a big deal to side load.
 
My old stove was a side loader and my new stove is a front loader. I like the front because it is a wider opening then the side.
 
I like the top loading over front loading,just easer to get a full load with bigger splits
never tried a side loader.
 
I don't miss the top load.
 
Top loading to me made it easier to fill the firebox. With front loading I have quite a bit of empty space in the front to prevent logs from rolling and hitting the front door. Also front loading is messier as I sometimes get ash spilling out the front door when I open it if a log burned close to the glass.
 
Well, went from side loading as a kid, to top loading, and now back to side loading, although I can also front load on the f600. If I were to have to choose, I think I would prefer the top loading. It is easier to load the firebox from the top. After that, I would go with side loading, although sometimes it is difficult to gt the last couple of splits in. The front loading on the f600 is a bit of a PITA as the handle is a bit clumsy and sometimes I find smoke comes out while loading (no, it is not. Draft issue, plenty of that).
 
Had a top/front loader. Loved the top loading feature. (one of the 3 lovable things about the old Defiant Encore, the other two being looks and a good ash pan)

Now have a side/front loader. I load only with the side on the Oslo because of the much-discussed way ash builds up behind the lower inch of the front door,and then dumps on the ash lip if you open it. That issue does not exist with the side door.

As another poster said, the side loading takes some getting used to it at first. A big help is a good pair of extra long welding gloves that allow me to reach way in and not burn myself. The other thing that makes it easy is to split the wood in the right size to be able to hold it by the end and load it with one hand. Once I got used to the side loading, I didn't miss the top loader, though I did at first.

A side benefit of losing the top loader, though, is that we seem to have much less dust with the Oslo than we did with the old VC. The only thing I can attribute that to is the difference in loading.
 
Love my top loader. No worries about rolling logs, coals or ash falling out. Top controlls too, less bending.
 
Top loaders are all Ive ever known.. Grew up with a 70s Resolute and now have the Encore. I like it, for hte same reasons posted above. Trying to load through the front doors in a wide/shallow stove like a VC is a real pain, but I imagine its easy in a deep stove.
 
grommal said:
Had a top/front loader. Loved the top loading feature. (one of the 3 lovable things about the old Defiant Encore, the other two being looks and a good ash pan)

Now have a side/front loader. I load only with the side on the Oslo because of the much-discussed way ash builds up behind the lower inch of the front door,and then dumps on the ash lip if you open it. That issue does not exist with the side door.

As another poster said, the side loading takes some getting used to it at first. A big help is a good pair of extra long welding gloves that allow me to reach way in and not burn myself. The other thing that makes it easy is to split the wood in the right size to be able to hold it by the end and load it with one hand. Once I got used to the side loading, I didn't miss the top loader, though I did at first.

A side benefit of losing the top loader, though, is that we seem to have much less dust with the Oslo than we did with the old VC. The only thing I can attribute that to is the difference in loading.

+1 to what
Grommal said in bold (I added the bold typeface) . . . plus the previous two stoves I had were side loaders.
 
For a cold start, I put big splits in the back and then pile smaller splits and kindling in the front and on top. I miss the front loading door for building up the small stuff and newspaper and lighting the top-down fire.
 
I can def. see the ash thing (I clean my ash lip daily) and how it would be a pita to load a shallow(er) stove from the front....makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.