Hearthstone Clydesdale or BK Princess?

  • 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.
Jan 3, 2017
122
South East
Well that sure ain't happening with a BK. It's ability to burn very slow is unlike other stoves, it can do it very very cleanly.
I like BKs, and they were high on my list when I bought my last stove. Just sayin that long burns are not on the top of the list of priorities for a lot of folks. For me and a lot of people, once you get past 10 - 12 hours, burn times become much less important. Diminishing returns sets in and other attributes become more important.
 
Last edited:

Highbeam

Minister of Fire
Dec 28, 2006
19,855
Mt. Rainier Foothills, WA
My point is that 20 - 30 hour burns are NOT the 'be all and end all' to the majority of wood burning folks. I know it is the most important thing for BK peeps, but that is not the majority of us. That's all I'm sayin.

It doesn't have be the "be all and end all". You see, the BK allows for both a low burn and a high burn. You can pick! Sometimes I can't heat the house at the low burn so I need to bump it up. Simply turn the dial higher just like your oven. Oh and if more people would try, I bet they will find that 20-30 hours of constant heat beats the heck out of a little 10 hour burst of heat that uses the same amount of wood. See, the idea is to meter out that heat all day which is impossible with a stove that doesn't have a low output capability. Classic turtle and hare race here.

This thread has nothing to do with your beloved Woodstock. It is about inserts and WS isn't in that game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregbesia

webby3650

Master of Fire
Sep 2, 2008
11,121
Indiana
I like BKs, and they were high on my list when I bought my last stove. Just sayin that long burns are not on the top of the list of priorities for a lot of folks. For me and a lot of people, once you get past 10 - 12 hours, burn times become much less important. Diminishing returns sets in.
I agree with that. It was a really big deal when my wife worked away from home, now that's she's here all day, not so much. Although she hates to mess with it. With the BK she doesn't need to very often anyway.
But I also agree with highbeam. Long steady burns definitely are a must for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuckyBeaver524

velvetfoot

Minister of Fire
Dec 5, 2005
10,176
Sand Lake, NY
With the peaks and valleys, you can used to the peaks and start feeling cold sooner when the burn recedes.
 

Woody Stover

Minister of Fire
Dec 25, 2010
12,281
Southern IN
Jan 3, 2017
122
South East
10 hour burst of heat that uses the same amount of wood
For your 20+ hour burns you are loading your stove with twice the amount of wood then I do for a 12+ hour burn. I use 5 -6 medium splits for 12+ hours. You don't need to present your side by distorting the facts. Really not necessary nor helpful.
 
Jan 3, 2017
122
South East
This thread has nothing to do with your beloved Woodstock. It is about inserts and WS isn't in that game.
My point has nothing to do with Woodstock. I'm just saying that super long burn times are not on the top of everyone's priority list. There are many other attributes to take into consideration.
 

webby3650

Master of Fire
Sep 2, 2008
11,121
Indiana
For your 20+ hour burns you are loading your stove with twice the amount of wood then I do for a 12+ hour burn. I use 5 -6 medium splits for 12+ hours. You don't need to present your side by distorting the facts. Really not necessary nor helpful.
On some stoves this might the case. For me, I can fit the same amount of wood in my Quadra-fire IR that I can fit in my princess. It makes big heat, no doubt and there's nothing you can do about it! By morning it's down to a few coals and that's it. The princess is still working whole chunks of wood and monster coals. Most often I leave for work without touching it. It does 24-30 hour burns while the IR does 8-10 hours of usable heat.
 

Highbeam

Minister of Fire
Dec 28, 2006
19,855
Mt. Rainier Foothills, WA
For your 20+ hour burns you are loading your stove with twice the amount of wood then I do for a 12+ hour burn. I use 5 -6 medium splits for 12+ hours. You don't need to present your side by distorting the facts. Really not necessary nor helpful.

What are you even talking about? I don't care what you put in your stove. The only distortion is that you think we're all talking about you.
 

velvetfoot

Minister of Fire
Dec 5, 2005
10,176
Sand Lake, NY
When the tube stove is cranking out the heat, it probably pushes more total heat out the chimney compared with a lower, constant heat output stove.
 

Highbeam

Minister of Fire
Dec 28, 2006
19,855
Mt. Rainier Foothills, WA
When the tube stove is cranking out the heat, it probably pushes more total heat out the chimney compared with a lower, constant heat output stove.

Yes, to the tune of around 10% of the total energy. That's the difference in actual measured efficiency between a decent cat and a modern non-cat stove. That extra flue heat can sometimes be what is needed to overcome weak draft or heat the brick chimneys enough to limit accumulations.
 

webby3650

Master of Fire
Sep 2, 2008
11,121
Indiana
When the tube stove is cranking out the heat, it probably pushes more total heat out the chimney compared with a lower, constant heat output stove.
Absolutely!
 
Jan 3, 2017
122
South East
On some stoves this might the case. For me, I can fit the same amount of wood in my Quadra-fire IR that I can fit in my princess. It makes big heat, no doubt and there's nothing you can do about it! By morning it's down to a few coals and that's it. The princess is still working whole chunks of wood and monster coals. Most often I leave for work without touching it. It does 24-30 hour burns while the IR does 8-10 hours of usable heat.
You make a good point. If I were to load my stove with the same amount of wood as a fully loaded BK, it would not burn as long, but would give off more BTU's per hour as it did burn compared to the BK. The efficiencies between my stove and the BK are very close. But if I reduce my load size down to say 60% of capacity (5 - 6 splits), my burn times only decrease a small amount. I'm not sure what is going on here. Any ideas Webby? So therefore, I can get 24 hours of heat from 12 medium size splits. But it takes 2 burn cycles. Go figure.
 
Jan 3, 2017
122
South East
111
What are you even talking about? I don't care what you put in your stove. The only distortion is that you think we're all talking about you.
Your condescending replies only reveal your insecurities. Typical school yard bully mentality.
 

webby3650

Master of Fire
Sep 2, 2008
11,121
Indiana
You make a good point. If I were to load my stove with the same amount of wood as a fully loaded BK, it would not burn as long, but would give off more BTU's per hour as it did burn compared to the BK. The efficiencies between my stove and the BK are very close. But if I reduce my load size down to say 60% of capacity (5 - 6 splits), my burn times only decrease a small amount. I'm not sure what is going on here. Any ideas Webby? So therefore, I can get 24 hours of heat from 12 medium size splits. But it takes 2 burn cycles. Go figure.
Some of it could be that the end of a burn time in a BK is when the cat goes inactive. Other stoves don't really specify, typically it just means that a new load of wood was able to reignite without striking a match. Small coals left and that's about it.
 
Jan 3, 2017
122
South East
Some of it could be that the end of a burn time in a BK is when the cat goes inactive. Other stoves don't really specify, typically it just means that a new load of wood was able to reignite without striking a match. Small coals left and that's about it.
Yeah, this whole 'burn time' definition is a slippery slope. Anyway, lets get this thread back on course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: webby3650

Glen007

Member
Jan 31, 2017
11
Upstate, NY
Certainly sounds like I can't go wrong with either stove. The decision definitely won't be easy, buy regardless of which one I end up with it should be a huge improvement over my traditional brick fireplace. We bought our place this past September and the previous owners left about 3 cords of nice hardwood. I rarely build fires (maybe 3-4 per week) and I only let them last about 8 to 12 hours, but at this point I'm almost out of wood. Also, the fireplace makes about zero difference in room heat unless you're sitting with 6ft of the fire. I've really just been making fires for the ambiance. The Clyde seems like I might be able to keep some of that ambiance while throwing some decent heat while the Princess (based on reviews here) seems like the most user friendly and efficient stove for the money.
 

weatherguy

Minister of Fire
Feb 20, 2009
5,893
Central Mass
Some of you guys defend your stoves like you're married to them.
I had the princess insert, could swear the box was 2.54 cf. I could get 15-16 hour burns but I think my strong draft burned it quicker. When it was cold I would burn 3 loads a day and it did a pretty good job.
The Clyde is a nice looking stove, could see why your decision isn't easy.
 

tarzan

Minister of Fire
Jan 16, 2014
1,552
wv
For your 20+ hour burns you are loading your stove with twice the amount of wood then I do for a 12+ hour burn. I use 5 -6 medium splits for 12+ hours. You don't need to present your side by distorting the facts. Really not necessary nor helpful.

So by doing a little simple math one could easily conclude your in the "smoldering heat of a candle" camp.
 

BKVP

Minister of Fire
Ashford 25!