BK Ashford 30.2

[stoveliker]

We are not being evasive. EPA's New Source Performance Standards 2015, specifically state "it is illegal to install a wood heater in any manner other than the way it was tested". This is very clear wording.

Well, previous interactions on this issue were, quite frankly, evasive.

(And here opinions from different sides of the same story will differ), the EPA approved the stove after it was tested with a certain draft. Installing it in a system with waaay to much draft would be in violation of that wording.

Making the system compliant with the circumstances of testing is therefore the right thing to do. Why? Because it creates the right draft at the interface between the stove and the rest of the system: the stove collar.

In fact, we often modify "the rest of the system" to get precisely this (draft) in compliance with the requirements of the stove - by adding chimney length. And that is vociferously advocated for by BK, if draft is not enough.
Negating too much chimney length by adding a damper is legally not different imo. Moreover, it is safe. It works. It is good for the environment. And it is good for control (and thus comfort).

I know you have to disagree. But this is where the law is wrong. Period.

 

[BKVP]

I will elaborate on the point about using dampers. When a manufacturer tests a wood heater, they must run the stove at various burn rates. Back in the 1970's era, people would do anything they could to extend burn times. This would include modifications to the stove and adding draft reduction systems to the chimneys. While these attempts might have been necessary in some applications, often they were not needed for any performance attribute other than reducing heat output and extending burn times. Both of which could be addressed by purchasing the proper size stove for a given application,

The result of these additions and modifications was far too numerous house fires due to creosote accumulation. The creosote would not have accumulated to the same degree had such additions or modifications not been implemented. This is not to say the stoves would have burned clean, just less dirty. And certainly, more attention has been paid to the role moisture plays in performance....and customer satisfaction. That is one of the best parts of this site...the constant reminder of the need to burn dry, well seasoned wood. Not only does it add to customer satisfaction, it vastly reduced PM into the environment. So keep it up!

Data supports EPA's contention that operating a stove at a lower burn rate than as tested, can increase the particulate matter (PM) that comes out of the stack. Each and every EPA certified wood heater is tested at it's lowest possible burn rate. For those that have excessive draft, this creates a dilemma. For those that do not have excessive draft, it may allow the stove to burn at a lower than tested burn rate. This can contribute to increases in PM. Each stove is "tuned" to operate at the TESTED lowest burn rate. Therefore, EPA makes their position very clear in the rule.

Lastly, it is extremely UNLIKELY EPA will ever visit your home. It is however VERY LIKELY they will visit our factory and read our manuals...and Hearth.com!

 

[stoveliker]

Hence: measure the draft first. Get a number. Then know what to do.

 

[Ashful]

For those that have excessive draft, this creates a dilemma.

Wood stove manufacturer's understatement of the year, if I had to pick one. One simply cannot help but violate the "absolute maximum draft" specification in your manual, with a multi-story chimney in Pennsylvania, as far as I can figure it. If we consider the absolute maximum draft spec in the manual as legally binding, then it is very unlikely there are many legally-installed BK Ashfords above the Mason Dixon line, excepting those few right at minimum chimney height. I'm basing this on my own draft measurements, as well as several others posted to this forum.

This isn't to pick on BK, nor are they unique here. It's a problem created by the EPA using what amounts to a short stack in Florida, as the basis for their testing. This pushes stove manufacturers to optimize their stoves toward this scenario, which makes them less suitable for the application into which they're actually installed, such as multistory homes in Pennsylvania... or NY, Maine, or Alaska.

But I question the wording of the statement, "it is illegal to install a wood heater in any manner other than the way it was tested". Operating any stove at 3x - 4x the draft under which it tested, due to lack of a key damper, is clearly a "manner other than the way it was tested." Depending on the exact wording of the document surrounding that statement, one could potentially argue that the key damper is actually required to replicate the draft conditions under which it was tested.

 

[begreen]

When people run into draft issues, especially strong draft, they have no guidance with most stove manuals and the store salespeople are often quick to dismiss a tall flue as an issue.

EPA testing is to a standard under lab-controlled conditions. Similar to automobile emissions testing, this testing often does not reflect real-world conditions experienced by actual users. How many 2 story houses have a 16' flue system? Basement installation? Not considered. Likewise, a car driven in mountainous country may never see the EPA-rated mileage or emissions. And stoves get destroyed by overfiring because the manual lacks guidance on safe operating temperatures and where to measure this temperature. Inserts in particular have this issue. Only a few manuals note that strong draft may be an issue. All should.

This is where the EPA has not helped. If the stove is unwittingly being overfired due to strong draft, the user may have no idea this is happening. This leads to a degraded stove that makes the EPA testing moot. Ignoring strong draft implications can be almost as bad as ignoring wood dryness for some. The lack of documentation on how to measure and deal with these problems leads to homegrown solutions, just like back in the 70s, but now for different reasons. If the EPA is reading this thread, please take note.

Note, this is not a BK specific issue. It happens with many stoves.

 

[BKVP]

Wood stove manufacturer's understatement of the year, if I had to pick one. One simply cannot help but violate the "absolute maximum draft" specification in your manual, with a multi-story chimney in Pennsylvania, as far as I can figure it. If we consider the absolute maximum draft spec in the manual as legally binding, then it is very unlikely there are many legally-installed BK Ashfords above the Mason Dixon line, excepting those few right at minimum chimney height. I'm basing this on my own draft measurements, as well as several others posted to this forum.

This isn't to pick on BK, nor are they unique here. It's a problem created by the EPA using what amounts to a short stack in Florida, as the basis for their testing. This pushes stove manufacturers to optimize their stoves toward this scenario, which makes them less suitable for the application into which they're actually installed, such as multistory homes in Pennsylvania... or NY, Maine, or Alaska.

But I question the wording of the statement, "it is illegal to install a wood heater in any manner other than the way it was tested". Operating any stove at 3x - 4x the draft under which it tested, due to lack of a key damper, is clearly a "manner other than the way it was tested." Depending on the exact wording of the document surrounding that statement, one could potentially argue that the key damper is actually required to replicate the draft conditions under which it was tes

When people run into draft issues, especially strong draft, they have no guidance with most stove manuals and the store salespeople are often quick to dismiss a tall flue as an issue.

EPA testing is to a standard under lab-controlled conditions. Similar to automobile emissions testing, this testing often does not reflect real-world conditions experienced by actual users. How many 2 story houses have a 16' flue system? Basement installation? Not considered. Likewise, a car driven in mountainous country may never see the EPA-rated mileage or emissions. And stoves get destroyed by overfiring because the manual lacks guidance on safe operating temperatures and where to measure this temperature. Inserts in particular have this issue. Only a few manuals note that strong draft may be an issue. All should.

This is where the EPA has not helped. If the stove is unwittingly being overfired due to strong draft, the user may have no idea this is happening. This leads to a degraded stove that makes the EPA testing moot. Ignoring strong draft implications can be almost as bad as ignoring wood dryness for some. The lack of documentation on how to measure and deal with these problems leads to homegrown solutions, just like back in the 70s, but now for different reasons. If the EPA is reading this thread, please take note.

Note, this is not a BK specific issue. It happens with many stoves.

EPA is looking at draft variability for the FRM (Federal Test Method) due out in a couple of years.

 

[Jesepi]

If I read the manual correctly, the following holds:

1. You need no R-value. Only a noncombustible top is needed if it sits on a combustible floor. E.g. a metal sheet would suffice
2. It needs to be extending 16" in the front, and 8" on each side, and underneath any chimney pipe (i.e. if you go 90 degree back to a
thimble thru the wall), and 2" besides such connector.

Given that the stove is 29.5" wide, adding 16" to the width equates to 45.5" if the stove is perfectly centered L/R.
The stove is 29 3/8" deep, plus 16" in front, plus 6" in the back, that adds up to 51 3/8".

This is all described on page 11 and 12 of the manual.

Thank you for the numbers.

 

[ratsrepus]

begreen and stoveliker already said it, but as someone with one of my two Ashfords running on a chimney with pretty offensively-high draft, perhaps I can add to it.

High draft will not create any control problem for the Ashford. Even with my 30 feet of pipe and 0.21" WC draft, I had no control issues. But you will suffer in both efficiency and with the amount of fly ash stirred up by the air wash system (keeps the glass clean), which will eventually plug your catalyst, if your draft is way over spec. It's best to install a key damper (or two) to get the draft in spec.

For the Ashford, unless they've recently changed it, 0.06"WC is maximum, and 0.05"WC is optimum. I assume "optimum" is the draft spec at which emissions or efficiency are optimized, but I don't recall seeing that defined int he manual. To track this, I second stoveliker's suggestion to install a magnehelic, plumbed into the pipe below the damper. Here's my rig:

View attachment 299195

I envisioned your house as a big giant castle made of big stone, kinda like what Frankenstein had. I guess I was wrong

 

[ABMax24]

When people run into draft issues, especially strong draft, they have no guidance with most stove manuals and the store salespeople are often quick to dismiss a tall flue as an issue.
If the EPA is reading this thread, please take note.

This is exactly what led me here in the first place. Except my stove store thought I'd have issues getting draft established with 36ft of vertical height, and recommended an 8" chimney (still trying to figure out the logic on this). Both of which were dead wrong, I had an overdraft issue not under draft, and an 8" chimney would have immediately failed the WETT inspection as only 5" to 7" are permitted per my stove's manual. @bholler saved me a pile of money on this one, and led me to install a standard 6" chimney.

I'd love to have a member of the EPA show up at my door and have a try operating my stove without the flue damper and see what happens. Otherwise my install is code compliant and followed the manual. Something tells me the burn rate will well exceed that specified in the EPA tests, the stove top will glow bright red, and the flue probe will be well over 1000F. Oh, and there will be a nice black haze emanating from the chimney cap because the wood will be off gassing so fast the secondary tubes can't supply near enough oxygen to achieve complete combustion. But hey, it would be legal by their book.

 

[Ashful]

I envisioned your house as a big giant castle made of big stone, kinda like what Frankenstein had. I guess I was wrong

In 1775, they tore the roof off some older and smaller structure (ca.1734), and built a 30' x 35' house of four stories atop and around it. The 1734 house, which makes one corner of the current structure, has beautifully-lain large flat stones. A true masterpiece of masonry, likely intended to be left exposed. But the larger 1775 house has large flat stones only in the corners and above windows and doors, the rest being the rubble fill you see in that photo.

It was always intended to be covered in stucco, so they didn't bother trying to make it pretty. Builders at the time would have thought as much of exposed stone, as we would of exposed 2x4 framing and OSB today.

 

[BrownT10]

I agree on most of what is said. I have a non-cat with very strong draft. Fortunately, SBI has given some guidance in the form of restricting secondary air and also providing restricting washers for the burn tubes. I will try both of those this year to get better control of the stove. I would imagine this would be a non issue if I had a cat stove, or at least minimal because the flue temps wouldn't increase draft because they are much lower. Wish I got the Woodstock IS.

 

[Ashful]

I agree on most of what is said. I have a non-cat with very strong draft. Fortunately, SBI has given some guidance in the form of restricting secondary air and also providing restricting washers for the burn tubes. I will try both of those this year to get better control of the stove. I would imagine this would be a non issue if I had a cat stove, or at least minimal because the flue temps wouldn't increase draft because they are much lower. Wish I got the Woodstock IS.

I can't speak for Woodstock, but likely you're right. I can say the Ashford had zero control issues, even though my draft was 3.5x the "maximum allowable", and more than 4x "recommended". It really is an amazing stove, with regard to controllability and lack of overall drama. All of my problems were secondary, mostly clogged combustors, and (at least perceived) poorer efficiency.

 

[Todd]

I agree on most of what is said. I have a non-cat with very strong draft. Fortunately, SBI has given some guidance in the form of restricting secondary air and also providing restricting washers for the burn tubes. I will try both of those this year to get better control of the stove. I would imagine this would be a non issue if I had a cat stove, or at least minimal because the flue temps wouldn't increase draft because they are much lower. Wish I got the Woodstock IS.

Most non cats have an unregulated boost air supply usually located lower front doghouse under the glass. Blocking this has helped me achieve more control and longer burns.

 

[BrownT10]

Most non cats have an unregulated boost air supply usually located lower front doghouse under the glass. Blocking this has helped me achieve more control and longer burns.

Are you talking about blocking part of the primary air control? I did use fpil tape to partially block this but didn't help. It was the huge secondary air intake that sounds like a jet engine when operating in cold temps. I am hoping that partially blocking this, as recommended by SBI will allow the stove to operate and provide heat as intended.

 

[Todd]

Are you talking about blocking part of the primary air control? I did use fpil tape to partially block this but didn't help. It was the huge secondary air intake that sounds like a jet engine when operating in cold temps. I am hoping that partially blocking this, as recommended by SBI will allow the stove to operate and provide heat as intended.

No, this is a separate unregulated air supply that shoots air like a blow torch into the middle bottom front of the firebox. I’m not familiar with SBI stoves so not sure if they have this. Take a look at the lower bottom front of your firebox for a hole, my stove has two small 1/4” holes there that poke through the bottom of the stove.

 

[Ashful]

The last three posts are exactly why the op is buying a BK Ashford.

 

[Todd]

The last three posts are exactly why the op is buying a BK Ashford.

Yep, thanks to the EPA non cats are at a disadvantage when it comes to the new regs. Only way to make them pass is to either give the stove more air or add a cat.

 

[stoveliker]

I don't think the "more air" is necessarily a disadvantage. Many tube stoves don't overfire, run well, and do so cleanly and efficiently.

The advantage of a (most?) cat stove is that the range is extended to the bottom end as compared to tube stoves.

 

[begreen]

Yep, thanks to the EPA non cats are at a disadvantage when it comes to the new regs. Only way to make them pass is to either give the stove more air or add a cat.

The 75% rule arbitrarily favors cats. Some non-cats testing at 74% HHV are excluded by this ruling when in the real world the difference is insignificant.

 

[Jesepi]

The 75% rule arbitrarily favors cats. Some non-cats testing at 74% HHV are excluded by this ruling when in the real world the difference is insignificant.

Well everyone. I pulled the trigger and bought the Blaze King Ashford 30.2Their behind 2 - 3 weeks in delivery and setup. I'll let everyone know how well it burns in due time. Thanks to all !

 

[stoveliker]

Nice. And 2-3 weeks is awesome this day and age! Some folks have to wait months for their new stove.

 

[Jesepi]

Nice. And 2-3 weeks is awesome this day and age! Some folks have to wait months for their new stove.

yeah...I have some work to do on the hearth pad. I braced 3 floor joists in the basement with a treated 4x4 where the stove will be.
Maybe overkill..the joists are 150 yeas old and full size lumber2.250" x 8" 16" on center.
Looking forward to the many years of heating with it !

 

[BKVP]

The 75% rule arbitrarily favors cats. Some non-cats testing at 74% HHV are excluded by this ruling when in the real world the difference is insignificant.

The efficiency of the various solid fuel products comes from the results of B415.10 to measure efficiency. There is no bias in the method for testing the appliances. The methods are part of the rule (NSPS2015) The methods allow for a level playing field when it comes to testing. As I have posted previously, EPA has in fact, in the presence of most solid fuel manufacturers stated they do not like the way some folks (mfg's) are interpreting the definitions set forth in the efficiency calculations. Of course they also have no enforcement arm, the tax credit being an IRS program.

From the test methods we get results. The 75% requirement was supposed to be 78%. In fact, there was interest in D.C. of providing the incentives to only the top 3-5% of solid fuel heaters. When a sponsoring congressman's aide called me and asked if 78% was too high, I said it seriously limit the number of stoves homeowners will have to choose from and in doing so, serves to discourage folks from getting rid of their older, pre EPA stoves. The aide said, then why not make it 72%, to which I said, "perfect"! When the 25D was announced at 75% , I along with other industry folks were not too pleased.

I will not argue the real world difference is likely never really realized. All the numbers come from labs, with dilution tunnels and all that entails. But they want to have some basis, and test method results are about all they have for now.....

In the next few years when the new test method is put into place, the way in which efficiencies are derived is much different than today's methods and formulas. If the 75% requirement by the IRS remains in place, I would expect only 3% of the wood heaters and 75% of the pellet heaters will qualify. Looking at lab data, it is likely very small firebox (FBV) units with or without cats will qualify. The fuel loading calculating program is difficult to manage currently and needs work. But suffice it to the number of qualifying units will get hammered down to nearly zero unless the 75% is lowered.

One final comment, I sit in every single industry meeting and the 75% was supported by all the manufacturers in attendance.

 

[stoveliker]

I think the remark was not "there is bias" but "the limit is arbitrary (and more cat stoves than tube stoves satisfy it)"

Of course any limit will leave folks happy (just meeting it) or unhappy (just not meeting it, complaining there is no basis why the next incrementally better one is qualifying and theirs is not).

 

[BKVP]

I think the remark was not "there is bias" but "the limit is arbitrary (and more cat stoves than tube stoves satisfy it)"

Of course any limit will leave folks happy (just meeting it) or unhappy (just not meeting it, complaining there is no basis why the next incrementally better one is qualifying and theirs is not).

I recognized BeGreen point.