Emphasis on low cost is not a bad idea. However, to say they failed with only 10 -12 hour burn times is ridiculous. Those burn times are ideal for most of us stove owners. Getting through the night with plenty of heat and a good hot bed of coals in the morning is the goal. And doing it with super low pollution and a nice fire show is even better. All in all, I think the early results for this stove are very impressive, especially at this price point. It may not win any beauty contests, but for a great many people, looks take a back seat to performance. And in simple black without the moose antlers, it doesn't look bad at all.
You hit the nail right on the head when you said 'optional'. That way, everyone can be happy.
If a smoldering fire with less heat is your goal, than you can't beat BK. Also, remember that it takes an hour just to fill it up with wood. Lets be practical here: you know you are going to want to check your stove before you go to bed and when you wake up.....so what is the point of 35 hour smudge pot fires? And, if you take pride in the way your home looks, it's hard to beat the beauty of a Woodstock stove. If you're going to ban the stove to an unfinished basement, then you might as well go ugly with a BK.
BrianK is going to do a long, slow burn with oak pallet scraps this weekend. The results should be interesting.
Nope, I already said that several times on this thread. But I don't think it is ugly either. It is just not my style. (Although the one in simple black without all the add ons is starting to grow on me.) I like the looks of the Progress Hybrid - and I bought one.
That could be very possible, again I was just comparing it to the meaningful heat times of the Cape Cod. However, Highbeam brings up a good point. In order for it to be more than a curiosity the IS is going to have to have some distinguishing features. The price point is good but Drolet and Englander easily own the low-price, big stove market. Another win might be in efficiency. If the IS can out-heat a similar 3 cu ft stove that could be a plus. Another could be meeting stricter EPA regs, which might leave out some stoves. And there is customizability which may be attractive to a certain market segment. Some folks just want to have something unique.
When you start adding up all the potential advantages this stove has [ cutting edge appearance, respectable long burn times, low pollution, great heat performance, good fire view, affordable price point, outstanading Manufacturer Customer Service, and customizability ], it gets harder and harder to beat. Only time and the market place will determine how successful it is. So let the naysayers chatter away until then.
I love the looks of the Progress. I like the look better than any stove I own. I like it better than any BK stove. But, it seems like that stove does not meet my needs when it comes to burn times. I wish it did.
I was disappointed with the reports from the Cape Cod. Great looking stove. But, at 3 cu ft, those burn times should have been better. The reason why I feel that the Steel will provide longer burns is that I heard that Woodstock allowed for the steel stove to burn at a lower output than the Progress. So, that should mean consistent burn times in the 15 hour range. We'll see if that holds true.
Agreed. if 10-12 hours is the end results, the lower price point isn't low enough to compete with the economy steel stoves. For half the price I am getting 10-12 hours from the 30.
Keep searching...eventually you will find what you need. For my current situation, burn times of 12 hours are ideal. I am fortunate enough to have been able to take early retirement, so I enjoy interacting with my stove, and have the time to do it.
Usuable heat is my definition of burn time. 15 hours during the coldest temps (highs in the 20s, lows in the teens to single didgets) and 20+ during milder temps
