Hearth clearance in front

[Rearscreen]

I just dropped off a Woodstock Fireview at my brothers house. He has never owned a woodstove as where I have owned over a dozen, but, he knows more about woodstoves as he has indicated to me. Anyway, he has measured in great detail where his hearth at the front will end in his room. A couple maybe 3 inches from the front of the stove (non front loading). In the manual it has a plan view clearly stating 8 inches. He said that the 8 inches is diagonally, in other words taking into account the height, so it's 8 inches from the lip then down to the hearth edge rather than straight out. Is this correct?

 

[bholler]

He is wrong it is not diagonal in this case

 

[begreen]

"The hearth should extend 16” beyond the back of the stove and 8” beyond the front of the stove and beyond the side opposite the loading door." The exception might be if this is a raised hearth. If the hearth is >8" high then I would call Woodstock for clarification.

 

[Ashful]

He has never owned a woodstove as where I have owned over a dozen, but, he knows more about woodstoves as he has indicated to me.

lol... good old sibling rivalry.

 

[Sprinter]

I can't remark on door clearances from the side, but it's my opinion that shaving an inch now and then on clearances is simply a bad idea.

One, your insurance will most likely not cover any damage from such cheats.

Two, my stove is a front loader right at 16" from the carpet, as required in the US. I now have two melt spots in the carpet and I'm pretty careful. I firmly believe that the Canadian standard of 18" is much safer and you probably won't tell the difference in looks.

My point is that minimum standards, legal or not, do not necessarily mean safe.

 

[Ashful]

I have more than two feet of stone hearth in front of each of my loading doors, and wonder how anyone even deals with 18", let alone 16". Go big!

 

[begreen]

The Fireview is a side-loader only. There is no gain by exceeding the required spec in front of the stove.

 

[Ashful]

Yep, why I phrased it as "in front of my loading doors", not "in front of my stoves". But, even so, I'd not say there's "no gain".

I carry two big satchels of firewood through the house three times per day, feeding these two stoves. Each time I set them down by the stove to commence loading, I might be causing scratches and rubs on my wood floors, if I didn't have those stone and brick hearth extensions to use for the purpose. It's also nice to have a nice big place to set a hot ash tray, shovel, or firepoker, when working in the stove.

 

[begreen]

Agreed, hopefully there is plenty of side room on the hearth to set the wood down on and accommodate hearth tools.

 

[Rearscreen]

I'm not a big fan of insurance companies when they find the fault (which they will) and see that "oh the requirement said 8 inches and we measured 3. Sorry Charlie. I consider the hearth part of the stove, a big hearth is beautiful and gives the stove a nice visual platform. And how many times have I opened my side loader only to have a "pop" and an ember come flying out. And while on the subject, what the heck is that sparkly firework phenomenon reaching out beyond door that happens every so often?

 

[Sprinter]

Don't insurance companies have to prove a direct causal relationship between a fault such as inadequate clearance, and the cause of the fire? As an example, if a fire is ignited from an ember from a side-load door, with legal clearance in front of that door, but the front clearance (assuming a side door) is not adequate but it can be shown that the front clearance did not contribute to the ignition, can they deny a claim?

I don't know, just asking.

 

[bholler]

Don't insurance companies have to prove a direct causal relationship between a fault such as inadequate clearance, and the cause of the fire? As an example, if a fire is ignited from an ember from a side-load door, with legal clearance in front of that door, but the front clearance (assuming a side door) is not adequate but it can be shown that the front clearance did not contribute to the ignition, can they deny a claim?

I don't know, just asking.

Nope it all depends on the wording of the policy. But many can and will deny claims without direct causation

 

[Sprinter]

Nope it all depends on the wording of the policy. But many can and will deny claims without direct causation

Thanks. That kind of policy stinks IMO, but insurance companies do seem to have you by the balls. I (roughly) figured out that if I had had no insurance of any kind in my life, I would be literally a few hundred thousand ahead by now (yes, I've been paying in that long!) I'm no fan in case that's not clear, but if there are any insurance people here, I'd like to get their perspective. Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

 

[bholler]

Thanks. That kind of policy stinks IMO, but insurance companies do seem to have you by the balls. I (roughly) figured out that if I had had no insurance of any kind in my life, I would be literally a few hundred thousand ahead by now (yes, I've been paying in that long! I'm no fan in case that's not clear, but if there are any insurance people here, I'd like to get their perspective. Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

I am not a big fan either but we end up dealing with insurance companies allot. Some are very good and easy to work with and some are not one even denies almost every chimney fire claim the first time around. We resubmit it and they accept it then it is rediculous

 

[Sprinter]

We resubmit it and they accept it then it is rediculous

So, thanks for the lesson in insuranceology... Never take no for an answer.

I'm also not a fan of lawyer tactics, nor their commercials, but maybe this is a good example of why one should always retain one in a case like this. (And I say this as a close relative of a Harvard lawyer of all things.)