Received an email yesterday with a
link to the results of the survey. Although it says, "
circulated it through scores of social media pages, newsletters and neighborhood listservs." I didn't see the survey presented on the other forum. That may or may not have much of an affect on results as at least some here frequent both. They also added this, "
Thus, the survey is not rigorously scientific and likely over-represents pellet stove enthusiasts," as a disclaimer.
This is also interesting, "
The survey was undertaken between April and June of 2024," since April is at the end, or past the end of the season for much of the country so they perhaps did not reach as much of an audience. I know many members of forums basically stop coming around about that time - appearing again in the fall. Perhaps this tat shows that very affect (although, it is probably true that the more northern states use pellet stoves more)
When they compared the reliability question with length of ownership, , ".
. . those who had their stove for longer than 10 years reported higher levels of satisfaction with reliability. And it was the group who owned stoves for 3 - 5 years who reported lower levels of satisfaction with reliability, possibly indicating that this is the period that repairs may be the highest." Perhaps that group with the least satisfaction purchased one of the cheaper stoves, in which breakdowns may occur earlier. Those who had their stoves more than 10 years may have purchased a more expensive stove and any "breakdowns" (in whatever manner) were probably viewed as normal wear and tear versus unreliability. I know there are plenty of people who have had many years of reliable service from their cheaper stoves so I am in no way saying that is the root cause, just a possibility.
Additionally, I would venture that breakdowns in the 3-5 year range may be indicative of some people not maintaining the stove, where a "breakdown" may be related to not having a clean exhaust or air pathway within the stove itself.
It was an interesting read and once again, they underscored that it was not a study that followed strict scientific methods, so everyone will make guesses to the meanings of the results based on their own experiences.