I will be installing one of these this fall. I'll be sure to let you gents know all about my experience, which has been very positive so far(ordering from Rainer.) 
Insulflex (pre-insulated) liner installed today
- Thread starter tickbitty
- 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.
- Status
Hey there! Been a while, but thanks for that. I have been very pleased with the product and feel it was a great choice for my application and a great value from you. Yes obviously when pressed I didn't have the paperwork to back it up but I wouldn't be using it if I didn't feel it was safe (for my chimney etc). I am glad you found the thread and updated it though, because I think this is great stuff and I am happy to see the follow-through!
Thank you, Tickbitty- Our Insul-Flex has been making the rounds in Distributors magazines in the 2010 season... If anyone has any questions please feel free to let me know.. it's made a tough job easy for a lot of installers.
tickbitty said:
Ranier could you kindly provide us with the UL listing number and Warnack Hersey number for the pipe? Seems to be missing from the doc.
BrotherBart they are in the first paragraph... I can get you the Warnock Hersey number tomorrow.
Thanks. If gives the standards but not a way to indicate that WH passed it. What people need to have on hand if they install the stuff. And for inspectors to find it on the WH website.
Rainier
Thanks for posting the instructions. There are conflicting statements in them that either got missed in the editing process or are just actually conflicting.
In the "Application" para, it mentions that the insulation give the liner a 0" clearance to combustibles, but in two other paras, one on each page, they state that NFPA 211 clearances apply to combustibles external to the chimney apply.
So, can this product be installed at zero clearance to combustibles external to the flue or not? A straight answer that demonstrates the integrity you represent is appreciated
Brent
Thanks for posting the instructions. There are conflicting statements in them that either got missed in the editing process or are just actually conflicting.
In the "Application" para, it mentions that the insulation give the liner a 0" clearance to combustibles, but in two other paras, one on each page, they state that NFPA 211 clearances apply to combustibles external to the chimney apply.
So, can this product be installed at zero clearance to combustibles external to the flue or not? A straight answer that demonstrates the integrity you represent is appreciated
Brent
The instructions are correct- 0" in a masonry chimney and all NFPA codes still apply just as any and all chimney liners... Again this is in a chimney or in a class A chimney (factory built)... Brent this is not a Class A chimney if this is what you are getting at- this is a liner for a Class A chimney or a masonry chimney and to be installed accordingly.. Hope this helps...
CleanBurnin said:
NFPA 211 requires an air gap between the chimney and combustibles. Your instructions state zero inches clearance to masonry from the liner, zero clearance to combustibles, but that the NFPA 211 air gaps still apply.
You can't have it both ways. It is either zero air gap, tested reduced air gap, or follow 211. So which is it?
Can this product be installed with zero clearance to combustibles as a result of testing that permits the NFPA 211 requirements to be reduced?
Your assertion about NFPA clearances applying to any and all liners is incorrect. The main code based reason for insulating a liner is to reduce the NFPA 211 air gap clearances to zero inches to combustibles to allow a wood burning appliance to be vented in a flue that does not have the one or two inch airgap between the external surface of the chimney and the surrounding structures.
Zero clearance to masonry is irrelevant if it does not reduce the NFPA 211 requirements for clearance to combustibles. When tested with insulation wrap, or with poured vermiculite, many of your competitors liners attain a zero clearance to combustibles rating. Your does not, and should not be used in a chimney that cannot be verified to meet the air gap requirements.
This has been my point all along, and I believe that the OP here thought he was getting a product that reduced his airgap clearances, but in fact he did not.
You can't have it both ways. It is either zero air gap, tested reduced air gap, or follow 211. So which is it?
Can this product be installed with zero clearance to combustibles as a result of testing that permits the NFPA 211 requirements to be reduced?
Your assertion about NFPA clearances applying to any and all liners is incorrect. The main code based reason for insulating a liner is to reduce the NFPA 211 air gap clearances to zero inches to combustibles to allow a wood burning appliance to be vented in a flue that does not have the one or two inch airgap between the external surface of the chimney and the surrounding structures.
Zero clearance to masonry is irrelevant if it does not reduce the NFPA 211 requirements for clearance to combustibles. When tested with insulation wrap, or with poured vermiculite, many of your competitors liners attain a zero clearance to combustibles rating. Your does not, and should not be used in a chimney that cannot be verified to meet the air gap requirements.
This has been my point all along, and I believe that the OP here thought he was getting a product that reduced his airgap clearances, but in fact he did not.
Brent- I wish you could relate to the industry, the liner is their for the chimney to fail - the chimney is in place for NFPA regulations.. and if you look through simpson duravent or selkirk or Don park, or any other chimney liner manufacturer you will see that they recommend insulation in their liner kits but normally don't offer them.. We only offer it as a means to a soluble end...
Actually I (OP) did not require Zero clearance. I hope for the sake of those that do require it, that this is all worked out sufficiently!
TheHeatElement said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the liner is their (sp?)for the chimney to fail", nor do I know what a `means to a soluble end` is.
As for relating to the industry, I don't work in the hearth industry, you are correct. I work in the aviation industry, focused on risk management and the airworthiness of products that manufacturers sell to aircraft operators for thier use. These products must meet stringent standards, and must have detailed documentation to back them up, or the product isn't deemed airworthy.
It's kind of like the liner industry that way. If the manufacturer can't demonstrate the document chain, from testing to instructions, that meet the requirements of the installation, then the system isn't considered airworthy, even if they built it the same way as the other guy who has the documentation.
Thier sales folks are often not aware of what entails a fully airworthy system. That is kind of like what I've read in this thread about your liners.
As for insulation from other manufacturers, Duravent offers a liner blanket designed for a zero/zero install, 6" is part #702-zc, and covers when it is needed for the system to meet NFPA 211 (i.e. when you don`t have required air gaps between masonary and combustibles). Selkirk offers one also, part#RF10l, and lists the number in thier instructions - btw, they have about the best instruction set in the business as far as those I've read go. You can read them here :
http://www.selkirkcorp.com/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=7348
In an earlier thread on your product here, when asked if it was "tested to UL1777 and passes by itself for 0 - 0 clearance" you implied that it met code requirements for a zero / zero install when you said this:
My problem with your product and your marketing (on this forum, in your instructions, and in the brochure you posted last October, 2009, to intro your product) is that you are implying that you product does something that other products do not - you imply that it complies with NFPA 211 in zero/zero installation situations while avoiding the mess that comes with wrapping the liner during install.
However, your instructions state zero inches clearance to masonry from the liner, zero clearance to combustibles, but that the NFPA 211 air gaps still apply (contradictory). Most folks will never be able to read NFPA 211 to find out what those clearances are.
Also, the UL certs you posted above do not cover the product you are discussing in this thread. Here is what the UL site says about Magnaflex liners
That is why Bart still asked the question after you posted the numbers - I don't think he missed your post, he had likely already looked them up, and knew they weren't relevant. It doesn`t even cover the Insul-Flex you are promoting here. It hasn`t been updated since 1994! The Canadian liner listing is from 1996, and doesn`t include this product either.
You should redo some homework and find the right listing numbers for this product.
Based on those inconsistancies alone, I could not recommend your product until your instructions clearly state external clearances needed without hiding behind the statement that the install must meet NFPA 211 clearances - spell out what is needed in inches of clearance to combustibles.
For the rest of the folks who have suffered thru this thread - thanks for reading. I hope you are now armed with the info you need to buy a well documented, UL approved, zero/zero clearance liner system. I don't believe Magnaflex Industries offers one.
I was just asking because I can't find anything but gas liner listings in the UL or the WH listing directories for Magnaflex Industries. I absolutely love the idea of a liner with self contained insulation.
I will look for the Warnock Hersey file- as clearly noted in the instructions that UL covers the oil and Warnock on the All Fuels- Warnock tests to UL standards... It's just a funny thing to have a liner system sold for many years and have UL and Warnock hersey guys walk through my plant on unsuspected visits to be questioned so much... But I will work on getting you the documentation...
Well let's discuss this, I have sent Brent a PM, and yet I forgot to yield all of the information- Through discussions with UL and Warnock Hersey almost a year ago they needed no new certifications because the Insul-Flex already uses a 316ti liner with insulation pre installed- It was discussed that because this was already a tested liner kit w/o insulation per Warnock Hersey via UL standards that insulation would only be a benefit. Any questions I can be reached at the office or UL or Warnock Hersey- as they stop in randomly
Which is a good new piece of information for Forum members. If you have a 316ti liner it is automatically UL and WH certified without it being tested because somebody's 316ti liner passed the test sometime. Good information. Never knew that.
When the liner is tested via UL with 1/2 and Warnock with no insulation then I don't quite understand the problem... It was Tested... I can give you a name of a guy that uses 430 SS liner... But when I sleep at night I know that I won't get a call from an insurance agency about a fire... I will provide the Warnock information soon...
Not trying to defend myself- but I have UL listings and warnock listings and I'm not trying to hide things... These listings cost thousands of dollars each year.. and they stop by 4-5 times a year unannounced..
Thanks for posting that.
In light of the other post (about cutting out the damper or ovalizing) I don't think the insulflex can be ovalized. At least not the version I installed, it's double wall with the insulation in between and I would worry about crushing it and making it too narrow thru the damper.
In light of the other post (about cutting out the damper or ovalizing) I don't think the insulflex can be ovalized. At least not the version I installed, it's double wall with the insulation in between and I would worry about crushing it and making it too narrow thru the damper.
I guess I'll just hack up the damper. I would rather a good liner install since this thing (insert) will be in there probably forever.
Yes, hack the damper frame. It is the hearth.com way. (Let any romantic fool who wants to remove a well installed stove worry about the damper.) Some say a Dremel with a cutting wheel works well. I used a Sawzall with metal blade. Once I was in position, it took maybe 5 mins of cutting. I made 2 cuts to remove ~ 10" from the center of the damper frame. I also removed one firebrick below that spot to allow the liner to pass with one curve to my stove out on the hearth.
- Status
Similar threads
