I had a Jotul F500 Oslo professionally installed at my second home and have been very disappointed in it's heat output and just overall design in comparison to my old Kent Sherwood.
People raved about this stove. Do they not know any better or am I doing it wrong?
For starters my Sherwood is a thick steel firebox, no brick or liner. It puts out incredible amounts of heat. It will boil a pot of water as fast as my gas stovetop, it will burn wood that touches it, burn the paint off anything within a foot of it. It heats a drafty two story 4,000 square ft ranch home with no blower with ease. It burns all night leaving a heavy coal bed the next day and runs fairly clean. It also eats anything, has been elegantly smooth/ easy to use and completely trouble free for 30 years of heavy use.
I burn well seasoned oak.
I installed the F500 in modern well insulated second home and it barely warms the room it's in. The Jotul looks very pretty, burns the wood nicely, has a nice secondary burn, almost no smoke output BUT little heat output in comparison.
The finnish is painted enamel, indicating to me its not designed to get very hot. It will not boil water. I leave a pot on it to humidity the air and it never boils. I could touch the surface briefly at any time and be uninjured.
My impression is that the new stoves keep all the heat concentrated in the firebox to burn more cleanly but as a result can not heat like the older Kent Sherwood?
It burns well, looks pretty, but doesn't heat well. Am I doing it wrong or is this how modern EPA stoves are? Would the external blower kits even do much? They pull air from between the back of the stove and heatshield... but the back of the stove is designed to put out almost no heat anyway for clearence reasons. Seems pretty ineffective place to try and source warm air.
Since it is so critically acclaimed I thought I would give some other critiques on its design from using it.
To me the interface is not easy to use or well thought out at all.
1) The air intake adjustment bare metal and to hot to handle. How can you have a user control that can't be touched?
2) The air intake adjustment mechanism is in the Ash causing it to jam, bind, and become obstructed. The operator must tap and shimmy it, disassemble it, lubricate it with hight temp graphite... you tube if filled with video's on how to do this from frustrated owners. The air intake lever on my 30 year-old sherwood is above the door, never sees ash, is insulated, and operates like silk with no maintenance.
3) All door latches are rough, finicky, spring loaded, require considerable force to operate and burn the operator. The front door looks very pretty with it downward turning lever and small finger knob. But the design kills your leverage and it is difficult to apply enough force to the TINY wood knobb wwithout touching the surrounding metal. The ash door is better for not burning yourself but still very rough to operate. In comparison every lever on the sherwood I can operate effortlessly with a single pinky finger.
4) All the doors have deep crevices all the way around them that pack with ash. This means every time you open a door, especially the side door, ash is spilling out everywhere.
These things seem so simple to fix, and are very important to the end user experience.
On the plus side the ash pan is easy to use and it's asthetics are excellent.
So should I replace it with a used Tile Fire off Craigslist or something else? I am shocked a new top of the line stove seems to be bested by a 30 year old budget model.
Or am I not using it right or is my old stove really just better at putting out heat? If so are there other benefits that make the lack of heat output worth it?
I was told if I took the bricks and cat out it would heat better but based on how this thing is built I don't think it can take much heat.
Thanks everyone.
People raved about this stove. Do they not know any better or am I doing it wrong?
For starters my Sherwood is a thick steel firebox, no brick or liner. It puts out incredible amounts of heat. It will boil a pot of water as fast as my gas stovetop, it will burn wood that touches it, burn the paint off anything within a foot of it. It heats a drafty two story 4,000 square ft ranch home with no blower with ease. It burns all night leaving a heavy coal bed the next day and runs fairly clean. It also eats anything, has been elegantly smooth/ easy to use and completely trouble free for 30 years of heavy use.
I burn well seasoned oak.
I installed the F500 in modern well insulated second home and it barely warms the room it's in. The Jotul looks very pretty, burns the wood nicely, has a nice secondary burn, almost no smoke output BUT little heat output in comparison.
The finnish is painted enamel, indicating to me its not designed to get very hot. It will not boil water. I leave a pot on it to humidity the air and it never boils. I could touch the surface briefly at any time and be uninjured.
My impression is that the new stoves keep all the heat concentrated in the firebox to burn more cleanly but as a result can not heat like the older Kent Sherwood?
It burns well, looks pretty, but doesn't heat well. Am I doing it wrong or is this how modern EPA stoves are? Would the external blower kits even do much? They pull air from between the back of the stove and heatshield... but the back of the stove is designed to put out almost no heat anyway for clearence reasons. Seems pretty ineffective place to try and source warm air.
Since it is so critically acclaimed I thought I would give some other critiques on its design from using it.
To me the interface is not easy to use or well thought out at all.
1) The air intake adjustment bare metal and to hot to handle. How can you have a user control that can't be touched?
2) The air intake adjustment mechanism is in the Ash causing it to jam, bind, and become obstructed. The operator must tap and shimmy it, disassemble it, lubricate it with hight temp graphite... you tube if filled with video's on how to do this from frustrated owners. The air intake lever on my 30 year-old sherwood is above the door, never sees ash, is insulated, and operates like silk with no maintenance.
3) All door latches are rough, finicky, spring loaded, require considerable force to operate and burn the operator. The front door looks very pretty with it downward turning lever and small finger knob. But the design kills your leverage and it is difficult to apply enough force to the TINY wood knobb wwithout touching the surrounding metal. The ash door is better for not burning yourself but still very rough to operate. In comparison every lever on the sherwood I can operate effortlessly with a single pinky finger.
4) All the doors have deep crevices all the way around them that pack with ash. This means every time you open a door, especially the side door, ash is spilling out everywhere.
These things seem so simple to fix, and are very important to the end user experience.
On the plus side the ash pan is easy to use and it's asthetics are excellent.
So should I replace it with a used Tile Fire off Craigslist or something else? I am shocked a new top of the line stove seems to be bested by a 30 year old budget model.
Or am I not using it right or is my old stove really just better at putting out heat? If so are there other benefits that make the lack of heat output worth it?
I was told if I took the bricks and cat out it would heat better but based on how this thing is built I don't think it can take much heat.
Thanks everyone.
Last edited: