Burn Tube or Cat?
- Thread starter Deron
- Start date
-
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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
bluefrier said:
hahaha
Thats funny. Although I would agree to you pre 2009 now that the government owns them well...gonna have to switch over to ford. I'm still keeping my 1964 Malibu SS however :cheese:
Yeah, do a search for "cat vs non cat" and you will find many hits. This is one of the on going great debates raging here, seems lately the cats have been winning.
My next stove will be a CAT, not because I think they are better, but because I have never owned one and I want to be able to use one first hand and find out for myself.
Owned a Cat for 20 years, just starting with a burn tube/non Cat. My Cat was bigger and heavier, slower to heat up for engaging the Cat. The advantage was that once it was up to temp, 800 F - 900 F (internal probe in the Cat chamber), I could turn down the air and it could cruise for 6-8 hours and stay above 400 F. Even after 8-10 hours, I would still have a nice bed of coals.
My Olso, F 500, is a smaller firebox, 2 CF, so it is not apples to apples. It heats really fast, 500 F (top corner external surface temp) with secondary burn rolling in 30 minutes. Simple and easy. Front window light show is amazing. My Cat stove I could never keep the window clean, did not have a good air wash. But when you turn the air down, it is hard to have a good clean window. The drawback is that the Olso does not appear have the ability to have a long medium to low burn for overnight and "gone-to-work" fires. I'm sure that the Firelight and other larger firebox stoves have longer burns, but they would not fit my application they way the Olso does.
So far, I'm have very happy with the non-cat Oslo and glad I bought it rather than rebuilding my Cat stove. But I am only on my first season, so I need to go through a season with it to finalize my opinion.
My Olso, F 500, is a smaller firebox, 2 CF, so it is not apples to apples. It heats really fast, 500 F (top corner external surface temp) with secondary burn rolling in 30 minutes. Simple and easy. Front window light show is amazing. My Cat stove I could never keep the window clean, did not have a good air wash. But when you turn the air down, it is hard to have a good clean window. The drawback is that the Olso does not appear have the ability to have a long medium to low burn for overnight and "gone-to-work" fires. I'm sure that the Firelight and other larger firebox stoves have longer burns, but they would not fit my application they way the Olso does.
So far, I'm have very happy with the non-cat Oslo and glad I bought it rather than rebuilding my Cat stove. But I am only on my first season, so I need to go through a season with it to finalize my opinion.
It looks like the larger stoves are cat equipped. The largest non cat I've seen around my area
is the Regency I1300 at 2.9. My fireplace opening is large enough to accommodate the Buck 91
Cat which has a 4.4 box.
It's going in the basement so I'm thinking bigger is better?
is the Regency I1300 at 2.9. My fireplace opening is large enough to accommodate the Buck 91
Cat which has a 4.4 box.
It's going in the basement so I'm thinking bigger is better?
Is your basement insulated? Would be a shame to waste all that heat going to keeping the walls warm.
It's a finished basement which is very well insulated, the whole house is tight as a drum, which is why I have
been told I have a lazy draft and need a full liner.
I'm getting all kinds of different answers from dealers regarding Cat vs. Burn Tubes.
The last guy said it would cost me between $500 - $800 for a replacement Cat in the Buck 91 and the Cat
will only last me 3-5 seasons.
Isn't that way off? I thought they were
been told I have a lazy draft and need a full liner.
I'm getting all kinds of different answers from dealers regarding Cat vs. Burn Tubes.
The last guy said it would cost me between $500 - $800 for a replacement Cat in the Buck 91 and the Cat
will only last me 3-5 seasons.
Isn't that way off? I thought they were
Cats are around $300. And if abused you would have to replace them after 3 or 4 years, but if maintained they can last 6-8 years easy, and longer but performance will go down with age.
Sure sounds like someone is trying to scare you away from a Cat stove there.
Both technologies are mature and can burn efficiently. When comparing them be sure you are comparing current designs against each other - i.e. don't put too much faith in someone putting down their old stove (cat or non-cat) that they used for "so many decades" and then replaced with the other technology and now believe the new technology is the best tech since sliced bread. Keep in mind that stove designs in general have improved in the last few years and this is reflected across the board.
So - bottom line? It may come down to opinion, but there are some differences that are objective. However, first where the two are very similiar:
When properly maintained and operated, both will:
- Burn clean resulting in less pollution (smoke) and a safer chimney situation
- Put out more heat into the room than comparable older stoves due to burning the smoke
- Require better wood than older stoves - both prefer wood with around 20% moisture content for optimal function
Differences:
- Operational controls; Cat has an extra lever to engage the cat
- Operational methods - each has different methods, you will have to learn your stove (that's part of the fun anyway isn't it?)
- Flame 'picture' - During peak burn the burn tubes will give a serious "mouth of hell" flame picture. Quite a show, Cat stoves will vary from significant flame picture down to looking like nothing but coals and everywhere in between
- And perhaps most important - Cat stove will allow you to 'dial down' the heat output for a longer/slower burn and get less heat out for a longer period of time yet still burn clean. Mostly good for shoulder season and milder climates or those with stoves much larger than their space needs who just want to not feed very often.
- Long term you will need to buy a new Cat once in a while - cost is going to be there. Average it over the live of the cat and see if that is material to you or not. All stoves will require SOME sort of maintenance and there are costs associated with it - look at the total package and evaluate it. Cast stoves need to be rebuilt every decade or two (?). Gaskets need to be replaced once in a while. Consider your total maintenance budget and perhaps this will throw you over.
Religious arguments:
- Some believe one or the other is more is going to burn less wood for you over the long term. Maybe so, maybe not. Could be the technology or the way people operate the stoves.
- Some find Cats more difficult to operate. Some find adjusting air on non-cats too much to watch.
- Many have been 'burned' by one technology or another before or have fallen in love with a particular stove/brand that has one tech or another and thus are adamant supporters of that tech.
So - it comes down to what you really want. All in all I think the ability to dial-down the heat and still burn clean is the big one for me. I like this feature and am happy with mine. My prior stove was a non-cat but was an 'everburn' not a burn-tube which I consider a flawed design all together so thankfully it is already not part of your discussion.
Both technologies are mature and can burn efficiently. When comparing them be sure you are comparing current designs against each other - i.e. don't put too much faith in someone putting down their old stove (cat or non-cat) that they used for "so many decades" and then replaced with the other technology and now believe the new technology is the best tech since sliced bread. Keep in mind that stove designs in general have improved in the last few years and this is reflected across the board.
So - bottom line? It may come down to opinion, but there are some differences that are objective. However, first where the two are very similiar:
When properly maintained and operated, both will:
- Burn clean resulting in less pollution (smoke) and a safer chimney situation
- Put out more heat into the room than comparable older stoves due to burning the smoke
- Require better wood than older stoves - both prefer wood with around 20% moisture content for optimal function
Differences:
- Operational controls; Cat has an extra lever to engage the cat
- Operational methods - each has different methods, you will have to learn your stove (that's part of the fun anyway isn't it?)
- Flame 'picture' - During peak burn the burn tubes will give a serious "mouth of hell" flame picture. Quite a show, Cat stoves will vary from significant flame picture down to looking like nothing but coals and everywhere in between
- And perhaps most important - Cat stove will allow you to 'dial down' the heat output for a longer/slower burn and get less heat out for a longer period of time yet still burn clean. Mostly good for shoulder season and milder climates or those with stoves much larger than their space needs who just want to not feed very often.
- Long term you will need to buy a new Cat once in a while - cost is going to be there. Average it over the live of the cat and see if that is material to you or not. All stoves will require SOME sort of maintenance and there are costs associated with it - look at the total package and evaluate it. Cast stoves need to be rebuilt every decade or two (?). Gaskets need to be replaced once in a while. Consider your total maintenance budget and perhaps this will throw you over.
Religious arguments:
- Some believe one or the other is more is going to burn less wood for you over the long term. Maybe so, maybe not. Could be the technology or the way people operate the stoves.
- Some find Cats more difficult to operate. Some find adjusting air on non-cats too much to watch.
- Many have been 'burned' by one technology or another before or have fallen in love with a particular stove/brand that has one tech or another and thus are adamant supporters of that tech.
So - it comes down to what you really want. All in all I think the ability to dial-down the heat and still burn clean is the big one for me. I like this feature and am happy with mine. My prior stove was a non-cat but was an 'everburn' not a burn-tube which I consider a flawed design all together so thankfully it is already not part of your discussion.
They also said 8" liners were problems and 6" was much better. Also said the glass will always stay black on Cat's
and can't be cleaned.
I really like the Buck 91 and the big fire box, was planning on a full load and a slow burn, but this last guy is pushing
hard for me to buy a 74 or 81 instead.
Had a guy come out and he says the 91 will fit no problem but will have to cut out the damper for the 8" liner.
and can't be cleaned.
I really like the Buck 91 and the big fire box, was planning on a full load and a slow burn, but this last guy is pushing
hard for me to buy a 74 or 81 instead.
Had a guy come out and he says the 91 will fit no problem but will have to cut out the damper for the 8" liner.
Sounds like you were talking to someone with some very strong opinions at any rate...
8" vs 6" : I believe "most" current stoves require 6". Bottom line is to get the right one for your stove. Biggest argument against 8" is generally the cost, but I don't know if liners have the same steep increase in cost that regular chimneys do. Other than that there isn't a 'problem' that I have ever heard of. Trying to run a stove on a chimney that is out of spec for that given stove is always asking for trouble no matter the situation.
As to cat stoves and glass: I can only speak to mine and tell you I've not had any problems. It has stayed clearer than my previous ever did. Thus there is nothing inherent about the Cat technology that will give you black glass. Obviously stove designs and operating (and fuel!) will affect your results.
I can't speak to those stove models in general, someone else will need to jump in there.
8" vs 6" : I believe "most" current stoves require 6". Bottom line is to get the right one for your stove. Biggest argument against 8" is generally the cost, but I don't know if liners have the same steep increase in cost that regular chimneys do. Other than that there isn't a 'problem' that I have ever heard of. Trying to run a stove on a chimney that is out of spec for that given stove is always asking for trouble no matter the situation.
As to cat stoves and glass: I can only speak to mine and tell you I've not had any problems. It has stayed clearer than my previous ever did. Thus there is nothing inherent about the Cat technology that will give you black glass. Obviously stove designs and operating (and fuel!) will affect your results.
I can't speak to those stove models in general, someone else will need to jump in there.
He told me a 6" liner would draw a lot better than an 8" liner and the 8" was harder
to insulate and if I didn't insulate the 8" it would hardly draw at all.
I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't have a storeroom of 74 and 81's or the profit
margin is somehow greater than if he put in a 91.
to insulate and if I didn't insulate the 8" it would hardly draw at all.
I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't have a storeroom of 74 and 81's or the profit
margin is somehow greater than if he put in a 91.
You would have to check with Buck but you might be able to install an 8" to 6" reducer and use a 6" pipe.
![[Hearth.com] Burn Tube or Cat?](/talk/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fchimneylinerdepot.com%2Fstore%2Fpics%2Freducer.jpg&hash=d38b40083ebc2c26aa825f44369f3544 "[Hearth.com] Burn Tube or Cat?")
Well, we are hijacking your own thread here... perhaps you could go with a new thread with a topic of "choosing the right liner" or something. However the bottom line is you should put in the size liner recommended for the stove. If the stove calls for an 8" pipe and you have the recommended height then it should draw fine (all other things being equal). Different stoves have different requirements - thus you go with the manufactures recommended configuration.
Now there may well be something specific about your install that might make it hard to insulate your 8" liner - and an insulated liner will draw better than an uninsulated one... that could be the difference, but you say someone else said it won't be a problem. Sounds like a second (third?) opinion is in order.
Now there may well be something specific about your install that might make it hard to insulate your 8" liner - and an insulated liner will draw better than an uninsulated one... that could be the difference, but you say someone else said it won't be a problem. Sounds like a second (third?) opinion is in order.
Deron said:
I think that is it exactly. I went to a local Buck dealer and he also kept pushing the 81 on me when I was looking at and interested in the 91. He was a persistent little bastard too. It wasn't until I started asking a lot of questions and having to explain R value needed for the hearth and longer burn times at lower temps for the 91 (all stuff I learned here) that he finally stopped pushing the 81. Do not listen to the sales people they have no clue as to what the product is other than their commission on the stove. You will learn a lot more here on this forum. I will give you an example of this particular sales persons knowledge of radiant heat and safe distance to combustibles. He was telling me that I only needed 18" hearth extension from the door of the Buck 91. The manual and the plate on the back of the stove say 24" min. for the front of the stove. He proceeds to tell me that the height of the door also matters and that if we stick some bricks under the stove to lift it a bit it will reduce the amount of hearth I need in front. In other words he is measuring from the door of the stove down to the floor in a diagonal manner. So the higher the stove the less hearth length required. (wow) He follows this up with hey I have your solution all you have to do is put one of the hearth rugs in front and your done! That"s what they are designed for, so you can use them as an extension if your hearth is too short. I proceeded to read the warning tag out loud to the guy. " This rug is not to be used in place of a hearth extension" The sales person has this dumbfounded look on his face and I told him I would think about it, an be back. That was the last time I stepped foot in that store.
In regards to the stove I have heard great things about this stove. The one thing that I have heard/read the most about this stove is that they really put out a ton of heat! I ended up finding one on Craigslist for $300.00 that is in great shape I'm hoping to install it this weekend. I also contemplated reducing the 8-6 so that I could get it past my damper without having to cut or dismantle anything but I think that I am going to do the next best thing and go with 7" pipe. You never hear of 7" pipe only 8 & 6 but I found out that I could not only get 7" pipe but I could get it ovalized enough to get it past the damper so woo woo. Hopefully it will not affect the draft too much but its such a large heater that I will never run it full boar, I only need to heat 1800sqft and this thing can heat up to 3200sqft so burning it for lower output the reduced diameter of the pipe may increase the draw but I will have to wait and see. You may also want to take a look at Insulflex, its a pre insulated double flex pipe that is pretty nifty. Here is a post on the forum on it, https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/44356/ The topic got a bit heated and out of control but I really like the idea of not having to wrap pipe then net the pipe ect, just drop and go. Hope this helps, and like I said don't trust the sales people or they will sell you a fire and radiant heat proof rug.
Slow1 said:
Exactly, I called a guy who's supposed to be real good and he sells several models including Buck, waiting for a call back.
Besides being in the basement of a very tight house, the only obstacle I have is it's not a straight shot up, the liner will have to go to the left about 3 feet.
Well said!Slow1 said:
My previous stove was a cat, my new one is a non-cat, but the cat had nothing to do with my stove decision. The old VC cat was kind of like the everburn layout, but with a cat in it. Very touchy on the draft, not too easy to control, refractory crumbling in the cat chamber. Those problems weren't the cat, but the design. In the end, I would have happily bought another cat stove had I found one that could meet all of our requirements (heating, clearances, other dimensions, looks). As it is, we're very happy with our burn-tube stove so far.
Slow1 said:
+1 for Slow1's advice, it is right on. I was happy with my cat, not a problem with the controls and engaging/disengaging. Really liked the extended burn time, but part of that is the size of the firebox. Window was a big disappointment. Cat lasted way long 10+ years with medium 2-3 cords/yr burning.
My new stove has an incredible light show and heats very quickly. Tradeoffs and the newer stoves of each technology may be reducing certain of their weakness.
- Status
Similar threads
