Ok, so shoot me!!, I changed my mind. I'm getting a PE Summit Classic!!

[Mr_Super-Hunky]

First, lets get the "egging" over with and roast me!!, when done with that, read on!.

First off, I just can't get this little nagging voice inside my head to stop saying "your making the wrong choice!".

As mentioned in the earlier posts, there is no local VC dealer in our area other than a local contractor running a side business with it.

As I was just set to make the final purchase of a VC Defiant, I decided to take a look at the competition one more time; this time, from a more informed perspective.

I could'nt notice that the PE Summit classic beat out the Defiant in almost every category (according to reviews and dealers feedback). They include:

. Lifetime warranty vs three years
. Much longer burn times
. Much better built (based on owners reviews and dealers input.....forum members too!).
. Greater heating capacity (as REPRESENTED BY MFG) 2400 sf vs 3000 sf.

I got to thinking that I have almost 4000 sf of "volume" to heat due to the open floor plan and open air space so the greater output unit is a plus.

While the Defiant cat is cabable of overnight burns, the Summit classic has proven itself to do this easily and guarranteed and without having to worry about screwing up the cat or the expense. I mean even though the cat extends the Defiants burn time, The *non-cat* Summit Classic burns even longer without any high tech stuff to break or babysit (and is'nt that the main goal anyway? to burn longer?).

This is important to me as I'm a horrible sleeper and once I wake up, I can't go back to sleep. NO night-time fire tending!. I'll just load it up and say "I'll see your arse in the morning"!!.

The build quality seems to be a unanimous "excellent" amongst owners as well.

So call me fickle, wishy-washy, flip flopper or whatever; I think I'm gonna commit to a PE summit classic. Now I just have to decide on matte black or RED...

 

[Mr_Super-Hunky]

Oh yea, one more thing. The PE stove has NO "R" value requirements for the hearth other than "non-combustable". NO having to stack a 5 layers of wonderboard sandwich in building the hearth!. I can now make a "floor level" hearth pad to match the other finished floor heights.
"

 

[PAJerry]

Sounds like you made the right choice. PE's reputation for quality is undisputed and you won't be sorry you bought one. The longer burn time seems to be especially important to you so you couldn't have done any better with any other stove.

Now, about the color - PE Whorehouse Red is very popular. Your wife may need to spend a few bucks to change the decor of the room to really get the ambiance going (velvet drapes, soft lighting, strategically placed pillows and whatnot) but why not go all the way??

 

[BrotherBart]

I don't see where there is any reason for "egging". It is your house, your stove and your decision to make. Both stoves are top notch quality and there is no reason to anticipate problems with either one. You have done your homework and will be happy with either one.

As the author of the term "Whorehouse Red" I think it would look great in that house. I would suggest not overdoing it with a gold door or anything like that. There is a big difference between rich looking and gaudy looking.

 

[myzamboni]

4.62GPH is still better than the 40-50+GPH of a standard fireplace.

 

[begreen]

I think there is sound logic to both stoves and I recommended both to be considered. Somewhere buried back in the 10 page thread I located a PE dealer in AZ. I can't remember how far away it is, but face it, from where SH is, almost everything is hundreds of miles away. As to burning pine, not an issue. The PE stove comes from the NW, aka softwood country. Lots of owners burn pine, or fir, or spruce exclusively in it. The PE Summit will be an easier stove for a new owner to manage. I agree that an Englander 30NCL would be also good starter stove for them. And it can be painted whorehouse red if that's the preference.

SH, as to your sleepless angst, let it go. This is not worth losing sleep over. There is no perfect choice. As noted earlier, you are going to be on a steep learning curve for the first few years. Relax and enjoy. If you decide to change stoves in the next few years, no worry. It's not that big a deal as long as you plan the initial installation to accommodate the greater clearances some stoves require. Who knows, 3 years from now you may want to own the first, castiron-clad, Englander, super-stove crafted by Corie that may be hitting the market.

 

[webbie]

For 20 years both I and the EPA/Industry have been telling people NOT to shop by the numbers. I will continue to do so. EPA GPH are not like EPA MPG, in that they do not use the same type of fuel that you do in the tests. They also do not use the same chimney, nor the same burning methods and stoking.

The same stove could be EPA tested 10 times, and the numbers would be different (could be a LOT different) each time.

That is not to say that a GENERAL lowering of the EPA numbers over a period of years would not be a good thing....but only if the real world burning follows and if the stoves do not get more finicky about fuel, chimney and operators.

Example of how far numbers can be off - the first generation of Pellet stoves were claimed to be 80% or more efficient. OMNI labs did some real world studies (in homes) and came up with numbers from 42% to 72%. The worst, as I remember, was Earth Stove....only mentioning it since they don't make Pellet stoves any longer.

When no smoke is coming out of the chimney, and no creosote is building up in the pipe, it's hard to argue that a stove is not burning cleanly. As far as GPH, I'd say don't shop the numbers until someone spends the money to do real world tests of major brands using split rounds.

 

[Mr_Super-Hunky]

Hi Buster:

Thanks for the "roast", as I deserve it!!.

Just a few comments to clarify. First off, the PE Summit classic is EPA emmisions rated at 3.56 gph, NOT 4.62! (big difference).

The cleaner burning Defiant is rated cleaner, thats true, bu this extra cleanliness will not heat my house!!. Another itean I don't understand is that even though the Defiant burns cleaner, it is actually LESS efficient than the Summit Classic. (69% Defiant non-cat, 71% Defiant cat vs 73% PE). Again, I really don't understand this!.

The PE is also a welded steel box; NO gaskets or cement cracking to worry about. Also, as mentioned, NO "R" value clearance on floor required!. this will make building a hearth much easier.

Personally, I think firebox size can be a little misleading. I think forebox size should be rated at "useable" volume. For example, I've read that the Quadrafire "Isle Royal" also has a 3.0 firebox, but it becomes more and more difficult to fully load with the same size logs as the box actually tapers narrower in the rear, requiring smaller and smaller logs.

The fact is that PE DOES have a "lifetime" warranty vs VC's 3-year one. I must admit that I smell a skunk when a MFG changes their warranty from lifetime to three years!. That sure appears like lack of confidense in their product or why else do that?. It sure does'nt *help* the consumer feel more confident!!.

BeGreen: Unfortunately, the link you provided me on a PE dealer in our state is old. The store mentioned in the thread does not exist anymore!..(figures), so I will have to buy out of state. Not having any "real" VC dealer is just about the same thing as the only people selling vc stoves right now are just doing it as a sideline. Last time I spoke with them, they were not even aware that VC sold a non-cat. I had to make a friendly bet with them to prove that they did!. This is not a knowledgable dealer!!.

I CAN buy the stove from nearby states or even Tom- the chimney sweep. He seems to be very knowledgable and a pleasure to work with. To be honest, I would much prefer having him as "my dealer" as opposed to a local sideline business that has absolutely no clue on this product!.

BTW, as far as the "whorehouse" red, we will choose either the plain mate black or possibly the red. The reason is that with a log home, everything is brown. The floors are wood, the wall logs are wood, the ceilings are T&G wood, even the cabinets are all wood. We need to introduce some nice colors and I may build the hearth out of used brick and a red stove with black accents may look very nice. I agree, the gold trim would qualify for an episode of "pimp my stove'!!

 

[webbie]

Here is an article - about masonry heaters in this case - but written by someone extremely familiar with (and the article discusses) regular EPA testing on RWH (residental wood heaters).....

http://mha-net.org/html/p-tieg02.htm

Some quotes:
"The combustion of wood in Residential Woodfired Heaters (RWHs) involves highly complex chemical processes which are sensitive to a wide variety of influences. Key elements required for efficient combustion include high combustion zone temperatures, appropriate air-to-fuel ratios, adequate air (i.e., oxygen) and fuel mixing, and adequate residence time. The batch process of wood combustion in the naturally drafted RWH presents special problems in that the entire fuel charge is involved in various and changing states of a complete combustion processes throughout the fuel-load burning cycle. Ideal conditions vary during each stage, making complete and efficient combustion of the entire fuel charge in a single RWH configuration very difficult. At best, present designers of naturally drafted RWHs provide optimized averages for the burn cycle: complete and efficient combustion for all stages of the burn cycle have not been perfected"

AND, the big one for all you GPH types:

"G/hr should not, however, be used to estimate the field performance of RWH appliances or typical real emissions."

This, BTW, is the guy who wrote the book and works for one of the major test labs (OMNI).

 

[Todd]

SH,
Did you look into that new PE Alderlea? Same as the Summit, but with a nice cast iron look.

 

[BrotherBart]

Exactly Craig. There is entirely too much hand wringing involving GPH in the stove buying decisions. Better to go with the EPA approved stove that fits your lifestyle and aesthetic requirements.

The 30-NC turned in some impressive numbers in the test lab but there ain't no way it is only putting out 1.6 GPH in my house. If I fired the crap out of it like they do in the lab we would have to move in with the neighbors down the road until the place cooled off.

Cars and stoves. Your mileage may vary. Your mileage WILL vary.

 

[webbie]

Hi Buster:

Thanks for the "roast", as I deserve it!!.

Just a few comments to clarify. First off, the PE Summit classic is EPA emmisions rated at 3.56 gph, NOT 4.62! (big difference).

The cleaner burning Defiant is rated cleaner, thats true, bu this extra cleanliness will not heat my house!!. Another itean I don't understand is that even though the Defiant burns cleaner, it is actually LESS efficient than the Summit Classic. (69% Defiant non-cat, 71% Defiant cat vs 73% PE). Again, I really don't understand this!.

The PE is also a welded steel box; NO gaskets or cement cracking to worry about. Also, as mentioned, NO "R" value clearance on floor required!. this will make building a hearth much easier.!

The same article says that a stove could be 0% efficient and still pass EPA tests!

"Neither the concept of g/hr itself nor the test method protocols to measure g/hr emissions, require the production of any useful heat, only that the appliance be able to burn specified fuel loads within 4 prescribed burn rate categories. To emphasize: The test methods do not use heat output categories, just burn rate categories."

and another one for the skeptics:
"It's only a quirk of history that of the three options for reporting units, the EPA, and the states that have had certification programs, chose the g/hr units to establish regulatory emission limits for RWH appliances."

and

"Clearly the most useful reporting units would have been in grams of pollutants discharged to the airshed per unit of useful heat output from the RWH appliance. The real advantage of this unit-of- measure is that it would take into account the overall thermal (both combustion and heat transfer) efficiency of the appliance."

 

[Mr_Super-Hunky]

Buster:

the Blaze king you refer to IS a fantastic stove, absolutely no argument there. It just looks like a space ship or early droid from land of the lost!. Aesthetics ARE important to us, (which is why we passed on the Mansfield), even though, admitidly, that would probably be the best *functional* choice.

The best stove for our situation that meets both function AND aesthetics is the VC Defiant, PE Summit classic, or as Todd mentioned, the Alderlea.

After closer consideration, I just think the PE is the better match.

.The non-cat PE stove burns longer than the VC cat with less $$$$ and babysitting
.Lifetime warranty vs 3 years.
.The PE is MORE efficient (69% vs 73%),
.Welded steel box has had less repairs than cement or gaskets...btw, I do have a very nice welder just in case!.
.No "R" value for hearth

I really think the whole gph emissions thing is a total crock!!. like I said, the PE stove burns longer and is more efficient than the Defiant even though it is not as "clean".

Not to be fresh, but I can't heat my house with less chimney emmissions!!.

 

[Gunner]

PE burns 450% dirtier. Check out the GPH and has smaller fire box. IT can not produce the rated claims, with smaller fire box and so inefficient, You were lulled by overstated manufacturer's claims

Most are fighting Burining Issues people, showing how clean a wood stove can burn and advocating cleaner burning. Lets compare 4.62 GPH compared to .75

4.62 GPH may not even pass the next EPA mandates. Naturally the decision is yours and you are purchasing a quality stove. But don't let that nagging voice persist,
I could have gotten the cleanest stove ever tested by the EPA, now I have one that does not pass the next EPA standards.

Lets examine the warranty issue situation You are in the same position with a PE stove. that requirese dealer support for warranty issues and no dealers within hunderds of miles.

Me, I would choose a stove that has a dealer and can get parts and is responsible for warranty issues. In your case, the time limits, is worth only the paper it is printed on.

No one here has gotten PE to respond to warranty issues yet. Its up to the indivual dealers to provide that. After all, it is factored in the price.

Much bettter burn times, nobody is testing their stoves using pine. How can a less efffecient stove, with a smaller fire box, claim more BTUs and longer burn times?

If you believe the manufactures hype, boy do I have a swamp land deal for you?

Buster, are you editing Elk's writing and posting it for him...does anyone else see the similarities?

Not only do you have the GPH #'s wrong, but your using them to compare efficiency which is also WRONG.

450% dirtier.......... :snake: nice try.

Since you are so sure that "IT can not produce it's rated claims" I'm sure that you have some first hand experience firing one right? :roll:

The MFG warranty is what it is...3yr vs lifetime, the fact that YOU think a warranty is worth nothing don't mean squat.

"No one here has gotten PE to respond to warranty issues yet" :-S What warranty issues? Why would PE or any other MFG be obligated to respond on hearth.com?

Buster, aka mini Elk, get you facts straight next time so you won't look so silly. A little remedial reading on gph and efficiency may also be in order.

 

[Gunner]

The reality is both stoves are capable of doing the job. end of story. SH should get what ever he likes best.

Second hand speculation about how much wood can be loaded from someone who has never even seen one of the stoves in question is totally pointless.

He said he was willing to bet, he could load more wood volume using the top loading system, than the smaller fire box PE Summit.

 

[webbie]

I e-mailed the resident expert.

Buster, I repeat - from the expert:

“G/hr should not, however, be used to estimate the field performance of Residential Wood Heater appliances or typical real emissions.”

That is from Paul Tiegs of Omni labs.

Perhaps you know better. I don't.

If you are saying that, in normal field conditions, that a Defiant burns 450% cleaner....or more efficiently, than a PE....well, then I think you are mistaken. It doesn't matter how much back and forth we do about this - I will change my mind when you show me a study done in the field over a season of numerous stoves burning cordwood. Until then, I will use pass/fail as well as firebox side and other design elements to make my own (and help others with their) decisions.

--------------------------------------------------
Paul Tiegs, P.E.
Vice President
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc.
SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Tiegs has over 36 years of experience in the technical engineering and management fields.
He remains involved with the development and revision of national and international standards
pertaining to the safety, efficiency, and emission performance of hearth products.
Mr. Tiegs is recognized internationally as an expert in the field of hearth product emissions
characterizations, safety testing, and engineering evaluations. Mr. Tiegs was involved in several
projects that generated information and data used in support of the development of the U.S.
EPA’s wood-fired heater New Source Performance Standard (NSPS: 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
AAA), and in 1998 he managed an OMNI project for the EPA to evaluate the NSPS and define
states-of-the-art for residential wood combustion technology and testing. He has also managed
several projects to develop methods for woodheater emissions and thermal efficiency testing.
Under contract to Washington State, he provided technical support for the development of the
State=s fireplace emissions standard. He also provided technical support for the development of
masonry heater standards by the State of Colorado and fireplace standards proposed by the
Northern Sonoma County, California Air Pollution Control District. He has participated on the
ISO Technical Sub-Committee ISO TC116(3) for the development of a solid fuel room-heater
standard addressing the thermal output, efficiency, flue gas emissions, and clearance from
combustible surfaces. He has provided consultation to the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association
for the ASTM development of air emissions test methods for fireplaces, masonry heaters, and
outdoor hydronic boilers. He holds patents for a virtual witness testing procedure which allows
manufacturers the convenience and cost benefits of certification testing new heating appliances
at their own plant facilities with their own engineers and technicians.
----------------------------------------------------

 

[begreen]

For the record, PE lists the Summit Classic at 3.56 gph, not 4.62.

 

[Gunner]

No attacking here...just trying to clear the air, smelled like BS

When you make outlandish claims, post incorrect #'s, and claim GPH is a measure of efficiency you may get called on it.

 

[Mr_Super-Hunky]

Hey, should'nt you guys be razzing me!!. I mean I'm the wishy washy one who was proclaiming the VC Defiant to be the best thing since the micro-thong!. Anyway, there is still yet another question I don't understand. Here it is.

If the VC Defiant is so clean burning (rated at .075 gph), then how can it only be 69% efficient (epa rated). while the much *dirtier* PE Summit (rated at 3.65 gph) is rated at 73% efficiency???.

Hmmm, something has just GOT to give!!

Anyone?

 

[webbie]

OK, let's keep it nice (I think it pretty much is).....

I find the debate educational, and agree that I am playing my usual role of Devils Advocate, so with that in mind let me present some guesses and semi-facts about EPA testing.

1. Consider the R&D dept. of a stove company. They design a stove that works well and passes the standard. Yet, they can go further and design the stove specifically for the EPA test...to get low numbers for their marketing dept. BUT, this might make the stove not work as well. Obviously, companies make these decisions on a regular basis. Since both EPA and most experts have cautioned customers about shopping by the numbers, it makes sense that most companies care about pass/fail more than they do about the lowest number possible.

2. Who does the testing? It is my understanding that most stove companies now have the emissions testing equipment in-house, and have their own technicians do the testing. These tests may be witnessed.....or maybe not (see Tiegs patent on "virtual" test observation). In ANY case, consider that the tests are not run in a single lab somewhere where all the variables can be controlled. The weather varies, as do many other factors. It goes without saying that no two people stir the embers exactly alike (part of the test), nor place the logs.

3. The tested stove is not, to my knowledge, a production model which is randomly picked off the line. It is usually an exact prototype or something like that. Who is to say that a tiny difference is not tweaked in the tested model, which is then changed in the production version? I know there are some checks and balances (plans are on file, and stoves are checked every year or two), but something very small is unlikely to be "caught".

4. Every stove degrades from the moment that it starts being used. Maybe one stove can get low numbers on the first day it is burned, but what happens after one year? After two? Obviously, long term performance is MUCH more important than new testing. OMNI (Tiegs) have run some lab stress tests on new stoves and they found a WIDE variation in how the stoves held up....even though they only did the testing for 35 days (hard running).

These are only a few of the relevant questions and variables. While I am certainly not the first one to think all this stuff up, the idea here is to present it in a way all of us non-engineers can understand it.

My conclusion.....is that folks should shop for a stove that meets their needs, budget, style and other criteria....and that the usual suspects of proper wood, proper chimney and proper operation are perhaps more important to clean burning than the EPA tag.

 

[webbie]

Hey, should'nt you guys be razzing me!!. I mean I'm the wishy washy one who was proclaiming the VC Defiant to be the best thing since the micro-thong!. Anyway, there is still yet another question I don't understand. Here it is.

If the VC Defiant is so clean burning (rated at .075 gph), then how can it only be 69% efficient (epa rated). while the much *dirtier* PE Summit (rated at 3.65 gph) is rated at 73% efficiency???.

Hmmm, something has just GOT to give!!

Anyone?

I thought I answered that earlier in the thread.

GPM has nothing to do with efficiency!
It does not measure heat transfer efficiency, nor even combustion efficiency.....although it could be an indicator of the second. In any case, my understanding is that we could have one stove with 1 GPH and 60% efficient, and another with 4 GPH and 75% efficient.

 

[BrotherBart]

Why in the hell does everybody keep trying to apply precise measurements to the crudiest form of heat production on the planet? We burn pieces of trees for *^%$#) sakes.

Buy the one you like the looks of and that appears to offer the operating characteristics that you want. Then put some pieces of trees in it and stay warm. It is a stove, not a space shuttle!

Around this house it ain't furniture, it's heat. I looked at every stove on the planet and bought the one that fit in the hole in the fireplace.

 

[Highbeam]

I'm also a civil engineer, and I am not an expert on wood burning yet. My degree proves that I can learn and maybe a little more. Anyway, we know there is more than one type of efficiency. Combustion efficiency and heat transfer efficiency seem to be the two big ones. Combustion efficiency is likely very much tied to the GPH emmisions but combustion efficiency won't heat your home. Heat transfer efficiency is pretty important to get whatever energy you made in the combustion process into your home, this one will have nothing to due with emmisions. Ideally, the reported/published/listed efficiency would be an overall efficiency considering both of these stages and maybe it does, which would indicate a disconnect between the overall efficiency and the emissions.

 

[webbie]

That article I posted the link to explains a lot of it.

The whole thing was a compromise given the situation at the time, with the goal of cutting real world emissions by 75% or more. I understand the idea of using numbers as a measurement, but in this case it is not the whole picture. Consider, as I said before, heat transfer. As we know:

Combustion efficiency x heat transfer efficiency = total efficiency.

So a stove can burn clean, but put heat (not particulates) up the stack. There was a former post about flue collars on certain VC models glowing red - that is one example....obviously a high stack temp!

My limited experience with combustion efficiency was that you had to measure much more than particulates. You had to measure CO (or CO2) and stuff like that.

I don't think there is too much intentional cheating, but as one of the papers says "people who run EPA tests on stoves are by nature experienced stove users who without knowing operate the stove in a near perfect manner"....or something like that. In other words, the same engineer who designed the thing is probably firing it - not a real life situation.

But the easiest way to liken it to your trade is to say that someone created a water filtration system and then the same developer tested it when brand new in the lab. But what happens when it is in use in the field? A very different situation.

As BB mentioned, we are burning logs. By definition, they defy exact measurement. If we pelletize the stuff and burn it using forced combustion, we can control the numbers much better.

To be more specific with the VC (I had an acclaim), what is the effect when ash starts to clog up the tiny secondary air input ports? What happens then the refractory starts to crumble around the ports? Similar questions pertain to catalytic stoves which accumulate dust on the converter. Non-cats can have warped baffles and air tubes, etc.

This is not to say that all designs are equal, but in my own sales and installation experience, the stove which is easier and more trouble-free for the customer to operate under varying conditions is the best IMHO.

Sad to say, I doubt we will ever have any real data on all this....there are snapshots, but nothing which is credible over the whole gamut of stoves.

 

[begreen]

The EPA tests are a reference. They standardized tests as much as possible so that each manufacturer is rated as fairly as possible. Does this represent real world burning,? No. Does it take into account the aging and accrued crud in a stove that sees infrequent maintenance? No. Does it take into account the huge variables in burning methods and wood type and quality? No way.

Is this a lie? No. No more than an auto emissions test which can't possibly represent the real world emissions of a car. They test at 2 rpm ranges and move on to the next car. There is no accounting for the lead foot driver or deferred maintenance. Likewise for the EPA mileage figures. They are a guideline, not gospel. Same I would imagine for the sewage filters. Are they tested right after or during a big rainstorm that overwhelms the system?