Fire Chief FC1000 year 2

Mrpelletburner

Minister of Fire
Jan 20, 2011
532
N.H.
I'm so grateful I read a couple forums prior to purchasing my furnace. The Tundra did have shortcomings from the factory but I knew that going in and I built a system that makes it work incredibly well. I don't know how these guys are able to keep their cool dealing with these Firechief death traps.
So you aren’t in the market for a used FC? Just asking
 
  • Like
Reactions: brenndatomu

Mrpelletburner

Minister of Fire
Jan 20, 2011
532
N.H.
Had a 2hr call with HY-C on Friday. Going on almost a year and they are still working with me, trying to get things right. Their prior stove line had a great reputation, seems like they trying to go the distance to get back to that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brenndatomu

Mrpelletburner

Minister of Fire
Jan 20, 2011
532
N.H.
One would think the first thing they’d suggest would be a barometric damper to get your draft in check.....lol
They’re VERY adamant that the stove should not have a barometric damper connected. The design of the stove should prevent a high draft. I don’t know enough of the design to argue the point. Therefore the only thing I can do is work with them, provide data, and hope they can get the stove to deliver the advertised burn times.
 
Last edited:

laynes69

Minister of Fire
Oct 2, 2006
2,425
Ashland OH
I don't see how they can say that. According to the EPA testing, if the unit was tested at .06" of water column and the furnace is installed with a chimney producing .10"+ of water column, how can they claim it's made to run without a barometric damper? One would believe the furnace would need to run within specs of the emissions testing? It makes zero sense.
 

Mojappa

Member
Mar 14, 2018
122
Gerrardstown, WV
I don't see how they can say that. According to the EPA testing, if the unit was tested at .06" of water column and the furnace is installed with a chimney producing .10"+ of water column, how can they claim it's made to run without a barometric damper? One would believe the furnace would need to run within specs of the emissions testing? It makes zero sense.
Maybe they secretly installed a baro inside the stove and just don’t wanna tell anybody? Hahaha. It really is mind blowing seeing the approach they’re taking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brenndatomu

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,144
Wisconsin Dells, WI
I don't see how they can say that. According to the EPA testing, if the unit was tested at .06" of water column and the furnace is installed with a chimney producing .10"+ of water column, how can they claim it's made to run without a barometric damper? One would believe the furnace would need to run within specs of the emissions testing? It makes zero sense.

I agree, Lamppa can't change anything after passing their phase 2 testing. They can't even sell the water coil with them anymore because it was not in place when they were certified.

Along those same lines, I also don't understand how these cat stoves can become certified either. It's well known the cat starts to degrade immediately and over time it is shot and needs to be replaced. So, assuming they were tested with a brand new cat, this means at what point does it fall out of compliance? Then they have the bypass, which the end user can use to bypass the cat at any point. Without a cat, these things are not much more than a barrel stove. ;lol

Wood furnaces are testing at three distinct burn levels and are done to simulate all conditions in which the end user will use them. This includes forcing the furnace to burn at a very low heat output level. Once compliance has been achieved then they are not allowed to change anything; meanwhile these cat stoves have a simple lever they can pull to bypass the cat and the cat is also in the constant state of degradation. By design they are in a constant state of change! :rolleyes:

Personally, I know I'm glad I don't own a cat equipped wood burning anything. With my personality, wanting to achieve/maintain maximum efficiency, I could see myself replacing the cat every year or at any initial sign of degradation....whatever interval that would be.
 
Last edited:

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
4,129
NE Ohio
I don't see how they can say that. According to the EPA testing, if the unit was tested at .06" of water column and the furnace is installed with a chimney producing .10"+ of water column, how can they claim it's made to run without a barometric damper? One would believe the furnace would need to run within specs of the emissions testing? It makes zero sense.
Can't agree enough! They have figured out how to get these things to pass the EPA test...but that is not how they actually get run in the real world...and no where near the burn times they claim! (read the EPA test report) And it completely blows my mind that that they got the FC1000 to pass at all! The good thing is that if they are still in the wood furnace game in 2020, they will either have to get their crap together, or be gone!
They’re VERY adamant that the stove should not have a barometric damper connected. The design of the stove should prevent a high draft.
See, this is why I think that the FC "engineers" are a bunch of college grad newbs (or maybe they flunked out of college ;lol) you have to control your draft!! It is the engine that drives the stove!! Not the other way around!!
If controlling the chimney draft with the furnace was possible (or a good idea) wouldn't a computer controlled Kuuma do that?!
Or one of the many European lambda units...none of them control the chimney draft via the furnace (boiler) either!
Heck, Kuuma even supply's the baro with the furnace.

I'm starting to build a callous on my forehead from reading these FC guys responses/ideas :confused:
Like Laynes said, makes ZERO sense!

the only thing I can do is work with them, provide data
You need to be on their payroll...you are doing R n D for them...
 
Last edited: