Last edited by a moderator:
Looking at those tiny legs, no surprise it needs a R2.0 hearth. I am thinking that a long leg kit option that reduces the hearth requirement would be a good idea.
Ten foot tall legs wouldn't reduce the hearth requirement. Stove has only been tested with the six inch legs.
Does that mean it is out of the question to test the stove with taller legs to determine what hearth is required then?
Just asking - but did you plan out for the R2.0 hearth?
Yep. Who is gonna foot twenty grand or so for the testing?
Would that be the price for just testing the difference in hearth requirements or is that the price for the full stove approval testing? And why not have Englander sell the legs for $150 extra or so maybe after shipping back the short ones. Then people have the choice between buying/building an extensive hearth or just slapping on some taller legs. Btw. Woodstock offers an optional rear-heatshield for their stoves (at least the Keystone) with reduced clearances. My idea does not seem so out of the world.
Would that be the price for just testing the difference in hearth requirements or is that the price for the full stove approval testing? And why not have Englander sell the legs for $150 extra or so maybe after shipping back the short ones. Then people have the choice between buying/building an extensive hearth or just slapping on some taller legs. Btw. Woodstock offers an optional rear-heatshield for their stoves (at least the Keystone) with reduced clearances. My idea does not seem so out of the world.
when one submits a unit for testing it has to be tested in any "evolution" of the design, and each set of tests cost upwards of 10 grand (passing or not) in order to have the stove tested and given a lesser R value with the longer legs it would have to be tested for this to determine the reduction (if any) for the longer set. as far as the woodstock example above this was done when they were having the stove certified just as our was to secure listed clearnces on the heat shield for our models such as the 13-nc the Op has.
FWIW the 30-nc was tested with 6 inchers as well and sold now with the 9 inchers as a standard offering, however the R factor was not changed when we went to the stock 9 inchers as a retest requirement would have been necessary to do it. now , had the stove been listed with the 9 inchers we would not be able to offer the 6 inchers as an option without retesting as it would have made for a closer clearnce below the stove where the other way around crwates a larger space.
Thanks, that was enlightining. As far as I can see you are moving away from stoves that require hearths with large r-values anyway, so that problem will become a non-issue at some point.
That's a good trend. It's a pain to feed a stove that is so low. Isn't the Madison ember protection only?
Is this Durock NexGen? If so, two layers = R 0.78. At R=.039 per 1/2" it would take at least five layers of Durock NexGen to get close to R=2.0. That's why a layer of micore is suggested for the bottom layer.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.