We are thinking about installing a Lopi (LEYDEN) model woodstove and I was just wondering if anybody has any opinions ( neg or pos ) about them? They claim it has a 12-18 hour burn time is there any truth to this? Thanks.
Lopi (LEYDEN) model question?
- Thread starter damien
- 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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
I have the LOPI freedom bay that is supposed to take 24" logs but only takes 21" logs squarely between the bricks and is supposed to have a 12 hour burntime but I only get 8 at best. Burn time being load to no coals. Lopi is no more honest than the rest.
I think that the stated burn times are ideal such as the perfect wood, perfectly stoked filling a preheated firebox. Mostly a marketing number.
Imagine that.... 18 hours, wow.
I think that the stated burn times are ideal such as the perfect wood, perfectly stoked filling a preheated firebox. Mostly a marketing number.
Imagine that.... 18 hours, wow.
18 hours is probably like Hightbeam said a perfect storm number. I don't think that it's misleading or unscrupulous to state what the absolute best performance of your product is. In fact it's stupid not too.
In the real world I've been burning the Leyden. I burn 16" split ponderosa pine. Aged 1.5 years. When I load the firebox up with a good 2 inch coal bed damper down I get around 8 hours from flame to last coal. I don't think that with the 16" splits that I ever really was able to fully load the stove. There was all sorts of capacity in the firebox that was empty. This next time I go cut some more wood I'm cutting 20" rounds and am going to leave a few of them unsplit to see what the absolue max burn time is that I can achieve with this stove.
In the real world I've been burning the Leyden. I burn 16" split ponderosa pine. Aged 1.5 years. When I load the firebox up with a good 2 inch coal bed damper down I get around 8 hours from flame to last coal. I don't think that with the 16" splits that I ever really was able to fully load the stove. There was all sorts of capacity in the firebox that was empty. This next time I go cut some more wood I'm cutting 20" rounds and am going to leave a few of them unsplit to see what the absolue max burn time is that I can achieve with this stove.
I've been burning one since January and I'm happy with it. I'm burning 16 to 18-inch splits and rounds of good hardwood 24-7 and get 8-12 hour burns with enough coals to light up a mix of cedar and hardwood kindling in the morning.
It's a very pretty stove in my opinion, and my wife loves it.
My only complaints are that you have to tweek the tensioning nut on the bypass door about once per week (easy to do when cold, dangerous when lit) or else the door will flop open on its own, erasing your efficiency and possibly allowing an overfire situation; also the first run stoves had a problem with the bypass door gasket coming detached. I believe the newer models ( I think since Nov/Dec?) have a retaining clip installed. My dealer gave me the kit to intall, said he hasn't had a problem with any that he's sold, but mine went within two weeks. The kit install isn't a big deal if you've got some basic skills, tools and patience.
The included poker is nice, the gloves are just cheap work gloves and last only a couple weeks.
As far as heating capability, it is our main source of heat in an old farmhouse with little insulation. About 1,800 sqft. Right now it barely does the job, but the stove location is not the ideal situation and our house is really leaky, but as we remodel, insulate and weatherproof the house, I think it'll be a good fit.
It's a very pretty stove in my opinion, and my wife loves it.
My only complaints are that you have to tweek the tensioning nut on the bypass door about once per week (easy to do when cold, dangerous when lit) or else the door will flop open on its own, erasing your efficiency and possibly allowing an overfire situation; also the first run stoves had a problem with the bypass door gasket coming detached. I believe the newer models ( I think since Nov/Dec?) have a retaining clip installed. My dealer gave me the kit to intall, said he hasn't had a problem with any that he's sold, but mine went within two weeks. The kit install isn't a big deal if you've got some basic skills, tools and patience.
The included poker is nice, the gloves are just cheap work gloves and last only a couple weeks.
As far as heating capability, it is our main source of heat in an old farmhouse with little insulation. About 1,800 sqft. Right now it barely does the job, but the stove location is not the ideal situation and our house is really leaky, but as we remodel, insulate and weatherproof the house, I think it'll be a good fit.
Lopi : LEYDEN
Heating Capacity: Up to 2,000 Sq. Feet
Weight: 375 Lbs.
Heat Output: 73100 BTU's / Hour Maximum
Burn Time: 12 to 18 Hours
Firebox Size: 2.3 Cubic Feet
Maximum Log Size: 21 "
Emissions: 2.4 Grams Per Hour
Efficiency: 70%
Construction: Cast Iron
****************************************************************
18 hour burn time from a 70% efficiency 2.3 cubic fire box ....................
Anybody care to figure what the BTU per hour from 2 cf of wood is devided by 18 hours at 70% efficiency ?
Heating Capacity: Up to 2,000 Sq. Feet
Weight: 375 Lbs.
Heat Output: 73100 BTU's / Hour Maximum
Burn Time: 12 to 18 Hours
Firebox Size: 2.3 Cubic Feet
Maximum Log Size: 21 "
Emissions: 2.4 Grams Per Hour
Efficiency: 70%
Construction: Cast Iron
****************************************************************
18 hour burn time from a 70% efficiency 2.3 cubic fire box ....................
Anybody care to figure what the BTU per hour from 2 cf of wood is devided by 18 hours at 70% efficiency ?
Yeah, those numbers are in the BASEMENT!
And of course those numbers are averages. For the first 4-6 hours, you'll be getting more than that and for the next 6+ hours you'll probably just be falling off.
And of course those numbers are averages. For the first 4-6 hours, you'll be getting more than that and for the next 6+ hours you'll probably just be falling off.
Corie said:
So if you figure it that way ( real world burning ) your talking 8000-10000 BTUs per hour for the first hours and then 1500-1800 BTUs per hour for the other time.
Also ! This is assuming you can even keep 70% efficiency at a 12-18 hour burn in a non-cat stove. I would say over 8 hours the efficiency will drop down to 50% at best.
So you would have to take off another 20% from the posted BTUs.
Whats an average home need in order to keep heated ? 35,000 - 55,000 BTUs an hour ?
Yeah, if they're fudging numbers a little, they should at least make them stand up to the most simple analysis. Grog know only so much wood fit in stove. Can't makem 50,000 BTU's over 18 hours when stov only enuff wood to makem 35,000 BTU.
That's like saying, the Toyota Tacoma gets 65 miles to the gallon and 1000 miles per tank. But it has a 10 gallon tank.
Duh wait, that don't make no sense.
That's like saying, the Toyota Tacoma gets 65 miles to the gallon and 1000 miles per tank. But it has a 10 gallon tank.
Duh wait, that don't make no sense.
Note to woodlove:
The posting of BTU numbers don't mean the stove isn't any good , its just clearing the marketing smoke screen manufactures put up and make stoves look really good.
12-18 hour burn times in a stove with a 2.3 cubic fire box is not real world numbers in wood burning.
When a stove is tested for efficiency % ( 70% per this stove ) its not at 12-18 hour burn times and would be more like 4-6 hour burn times and maybe 8 .
Most of us here figure what ever a stove is rated for max BTUs and total square feet heating its real world more like 60%-70% as to how its listed. So if your looking to heat 2000 sf with a wood stove then a stove that list to heat 2000 sf is not going to do it for ya. a stove listed to heat 2000 sf will more than likely heat about 1600 sf home. Now if your only looking for extra heat and not looking to heat the whole house then it wouldn't be undersized.
Just some food for thought.
The posting of BTU numbers don't mean the stove isn't any good , its just clearing the marketing smoke screen manufactures put up and make stoves look really good.
12-18 hour burn times in a stove with a 2.3 cubic fire box is not real world numbers in wood burning.
When a stove is tested for efficiency % ( 70% per this stove ) its not at 12-18 hour burn times and would be more like 4-6 hour burn times and maybe 8 .
Most of us here figure what ever a stove is rated for max BTUs and total square feet heating its real world more like 60%-70% as to how its listed. So if your looking to heat 2000 sf with a wood stove then a stove that list to heat 2000 sf is not going to do it for ya. a stove listed to heat 2000 sf will more than likely heat about 1600 sf home. Now if your only looking for extra heat and not looking to heat the whole house then it wouldn't be undersized.
Just some food for thought.
First of all i The Epa says 63% for this stove I have the cat encore (Same size fire box) and if any one can tweak running a stove I can. It is trated 47,000 btus How can 70,000 be claimed?
That's total BS. I get a good 400 and above griddle temp reading running a cat stove. with this cold weather pusting 650 I get over 6 hours burn there is only so much oune can get out of the same vollume of wood and my stove EPA is listed 13% more effecien than the Leyden The claims and numbers are lies
That's total BS. I get a good 400 and above griddle temp reading running a cat stove. with this cold weather pusting 650 I get over 6 hours burn there is only so much oune can get out of the same vollume of wood and my stove EPA is listed 13% more effecien than the Leyden The claims and numbers are lies
Yes, and cat stoves are rated at 72%. These are just default efficiencies. There is no standardized test for efficiency by the EPA, or independent labs. Too bad, it would be nice to see some real world honest numbers.
This is where I would normally jump in & defend Lopi......But I will not do that as I feel there is enough factory presence here that if a product needs defended then they should do it not just lurk.
This isnt just Lopi , this is every stove made. You can only get so much BTU out of wood and devided by the # of hours is what ya get minus the efficiency # .
Everything Lopi shows for a claim could be true but not everything they claim can happen at the same time. He(( , you could get 18 hour burn time from an old non EPA stove , nothing magic there but your not got to get efficiency and long burn time.
The only thing that looks like BS is the burn time claim , BTU output with a small fire box. Running the numbers on woods BTU X the amount of wood you can load devided by burn times. The only way you could get more BTUs is if it was higher efficient and even at that its still very VERY low divided by 12-18 hours.
A loaded Lopi at 100% efficient is only going to get you 4940 BTU per hour @ 18 hours.
18 hours is not real world , you'd get better heat and efficiency from a small electric heater than you would from the time frame in the 10-18 hour zone of the Lopi.
I can get a 12-14 hour burn out of my Summit with the 3.0 cf fire box but when its 20° and colder outside its not enough wood BTU per hour to heat most homes.
Real world.................. There is nothing to defend.
Everything Lopi shows for a claim could be true but not everything they claim can happen at the same time. He(( , you could get 18 hour burn time from an old non EPA stove , nothing magic there but your not got to get efficiency and long burn time.
The only thing that looks like BS is the burn time claim , BTU output with a small fire box. Running the numbers on woods BTU X the amount of wood you can load devided by burn times. The only way you could get more BTUs is if it was higher efficient and even at that its still very VERY low divided by 12-18 hours.
A loaded Lopi at 100% efficient is only going to get you 4940 BTU per hour @ 18 hours.
18 hours is not real world , you'd get better heat and efficiency from a small electric heater than you would from the time frame in the 10-18 hour zone of the Lopi.
I can get a 12-14 hour burn out of my Summit with the 3.0 cf fire box but when its 20° and colder outside its not enough wood BTU per hour to heat most homes.
Real world.................. There is nothing to defend.
The catch though is no where in their literature to they claim a BTU output of 70k for the 18 hours. Ask them or any other stove company burn time is measured from lighting the fire to the last coal extinguishing. Anyone is going to represent their product at it's peak performance. VC claims .7gph on the Encore non-cat. I bet they got it but I imagine over an actual burn time it ranges from .7 to just under 2gph. Should they not boast the cleanest burning woodstove on the market? Absolutely they should because it is regardless of what the average efficiency is. This is evidenced in the fact that they list average efficiency at 69%. I sell all of these stoves and they're all fine products.
Shane said:
I understand that , but to most unfamilar with wood heating it sounds damn good to get an 18 hour burn tho the heat you get from the stove from 12-18 house is pointless per BTUs per hour unless its only heating a bathroom.
I've had red coal in my stove for 3 days sitting in the bottom of the ash as i was letting the stove go out but in real world I didnt get a 72 hour burn time.
When the web site says 70k BTU stove and it also says the stove can get 12-18 hour burn times and its 70% efficient with 2. something grams per hour what do you think most people are reading into this.
Most people are not going to understand the heat from the 12-18 hours zone is about worthless for home heating and that the stove is not going to be 70% efficient for 18 hours.
If the low BTUs per hour were good for anything then i would just heat my whole house with only two ceramic heaters for $60. a month.
Its like a bottle of pop that shows 3-4 servings to make the nutrition facts look good , kinda pointless and very deceiving numbers.
The thread question was:
The answers given in this thread are the whole truth and define what the truth is to the 12-18 hour burn times to the Lopi Leyden stove.
Lopi can advertise whatever they want and I'm not saying that cant , the posted information is just the full story to the posted question.
I dont think it was posted that the Lopi Leyden was a bad stove.
Post to your edit:woodlove said:
Shane said:
The answers given in this thread are the whole truth and define what the truth is to the 12-18 hour burn times to the Lopi Leyden stove.
Lopi can advertise whatever they want and I'm not saying that cant , the posted information is just the full story to the posted question.
I dont think it was posted that the Lopi Leyden was a bad stove.
This is the same kind of truth that has existed for years in rating the HorsePower of an electric motor. I think Sears was the first to use the 2 1/2 DHP rating on a 1 HP motor. That's Developed horse Power. Even straight ratings are deceptive. A 1 HP capacitor start/run motor is less powerful than a 1 HP Induction/Repulsion Motor, or a three phase motor. But you don't see the advertising for these motors stumbling over themselves to explain the difference or why they exist beyond the marketing value.
I would think it would be a priority of the industry to develop clear and reasonable standards for rating that can lead to clear cross comparison between stoves. While statements made to imply a feature as better, doesn't allow the public information to truly evaluate a purchase and leads to dissatisfaction by the purchaser. That will not be a repeat buyer and will result in them speaking ill of the product to other potential buyers.
That doesn't mean only the best stove will sell, as there are trade offs. You don't see Mike Holton claiming the same quality as say a Bixby, but he can say, mine work and they are this much. The buyer can then choose to save money and not get all the whistles and bells.
To make another comparison, my last for this thread, Not everyone is going to buy a Ferrari, cause some want a trunk to haul wood in, and a better than 1" ground clearance to get in the woods. The fact they can save $200,00 and get what they need, may have something to do with their decision.
I would think it would be a priority of the industry to develop clear and reasonable standards for rating that can lead to clear cross comparison between stoves. While statements made to imply a feature as better, doesn't allow the public information to truly evaluate a purchase and leads to dissatisfaction by the purchaser. That will not be a repeat buyer and will result in them speaking ill of the product to other potential buyers.
That doesn't mean only the best stove will sell, as there are trade offs. You don't see Mike Holton claiming the same quality as say a Bixby, but he can say, mine work and they are this much. The buyer can then choose to save money and not get all the whistles and bells.
To make another comparison, my last for this thread, Not everyone is going to buy a Ferrari, cause some want a trunk to haul wood in, and a better than 1" ground clearance to get in the woods. The fact they can save $200,00 and get what they need, may have something to do with their decision.
UncleRich said:
Good post and good point on compressor motors. Actually there was a big court blow out on this and there were air compressor manufactures listing "starting horse power" and not "running horse power" . Starting horse power on a 2. something hp motor was 5-6 horse power and the 5-6 hp was how it was listed and sold but after it went through the courts they now have to list running horse power on all air compressors. I'm unsure what other electric motors were/are involved in this deal.
- Status
Similar threads
