Progress ( woodstock)

[rottiman]

nice to be able to have the options, though.....................

 

[BrowningBAR]

By the way, I can't believe people really think that looks don't play a part. Even my frugal self knows that if there are two stoves sitting side by side and one costs $5 more and just looks wayyy nicer I will spend that five bucks. 10 bucks more? Probably. 100 more? It's getting grey, how much nicer? A thousand more? Not for me, buddy.

Point is that looks are important, some people are more able and willing to spend certain amounts of money on those looks.

Which is why Englander frustrates the hell out of me. It took me forever to be able to determine how that stove looks in a nice room setting. Their website is awful.

 

[BrowningBAR]

The pH at 2.7 cubic feet will fail hard at 3600$. That's my prediction anyway.

Here's my car analogy.... the pH is priced and featured like a rolls royce. Perhaps they, like RR, only plan to sell a handfull of stoves and they probably will to those customers that choose to pay the high price for a somewhat high level of sophistication.

If they want to sell lots of stoves then they need to lower the price. Can't compare a WS stove to a hearthstone that is available to look at, touch, and be supported by dealers at every corner.

I'm not placing any predictions on the stove. But there are several questions that are created by this stove and it will be interesting as to how the buying public reacts to it.

End this current sale and their existing consumer base reaction is not a good indication at this point.

 

[PapaDave]

Bingo.
Wouldn't MIND a nicer looking stove (THERE"S a subjective viewpoint, eh), but it would really have to stand out to make me want to spend money for it.
Danno's got it re: the quality issue too.
I'm not saying others shouldn't spend money that way, just that I wouldn't. I really like the Hearthstone stoves, but wouldn't spend on those either.
Rented a nice car to drive to Disneyland many moons ago, and it ended up being a Lincoln. VERY nice, smooth as all get out, rode like a dream, but I would never spend the money on one when the F-150 would get me there and do soooo much more.
Some would call that cheap, I prefer the term...frugal. :coolsmile:
Wow, by the time I got done typing, a dozen other posts show up. I need to learn to type faster.

 

[rottiman]

Bingo.
Wouldn't MIND a nicer looking stove (THERE"S a subjective viewpoint, eh), but it would really have to stand out to make me want to spend money for it.
Danno's got it re: the quality issue too.
I'm not saying others shouldn't spend money that way, just that I wouldn't. I really like the Hearthstone stoves, but wouldn't spend on those either.
Rented a nice car to drive to Disneyland many moons ago, and it ended up being a Lincoln. VERY nice, smooth as all get out, rode like a dream, but I would never spend the money on one when the F-150 would get me there and do soooo much more.
Some would call that cheap, I prefer the term...frugal. :coolsmile:

Good thing you took frugal, I already got dibs on cheap...............LOL

 

[PapaDave]

By the way, I can't believe people really think that looks don't play a part. Even my frugal self knows that if there are two stoves sitting side by side and one costs $5 more and just looks wayyy nicer I will spend that five bucks. 10 bucks more? Probably. 100 more? It's getting grey, how much nicer? A thousand more? Not for me, buddy.

Point is that looks are important, some people are more able and willing to spend certain amounts of money on those looks.

Which is why Englander frustrates the hell out of me. It took me forever to be able to determine how that stove looks in a nice room setting. Their website is awful.

Oh man, I KNOW you've seen BrotherBart and Pen and Hiram's setups. They don't look the same sitting on the floor at HD.

 

[PapaDave]

rottiman, I changed it. Seemed less .......um, demeaning. No offense or anything. :lol:

 

[BrowningBAR]

By the way, I can't believe people really think that looks don't play a part. Even my frugal self knows that if there are two stoves sitting side by side and one costs $5 more and just looks wayyy nicer I will spend that five bucks. 10 bucks more? Probably. 100 more? It's getting grey, how much nicer? A thousand more? Not for me, buddy.

Point is that looks are important, some people are more able and willing to spend certain amounts of money on those looks.

Which is why Englander frustrates the hell out of me. It took me forever to be able to determine how that stove looks in a nice room setting. Their website is awful.

Oh man, I KNOW you've seen BrotherBart and Pen and Hiram's setups. They don't look the same sitting on the floor at HD.

No offense to Pen, but his was a plain basement install that didn't help me at all. Hiram's setup helped me out, and there were two others that posted recently that had theirs in a nice fireplace that helped illustrate how the stove would look in a walk-in fireplace.

Sure, it's shallow on my part, but based on what I see every year at Home Depot, the stoves looked like crap and were always half put together.

 

[rottiman]

rottiman, I changed it. Seemed less .......um, demeaning. No offense or anything. :lol:

Absolutely none taken.................................I freely admit to being cheap with the best of them. @ me age, I read the last issue of VANITY FAIR a long time ago............LOL

 

[RAPhomme]

I agree that in the absence of more hard data or more explanation from Woodstock, it's tricky to figure out just where the new stove is supposed to fit in the market.

Is it supposed to be unprecedentedly efficient? Or interestingly novel in its combined technologies? Or technologically super-advanced in componentry, materials, design, etc?

So some lingering general observations/speculations/questions:

1. re the OP: there don't appear to be any more "moving parts" than in any other cat stove. In fact, I'd say the materials (steel firebox, stainless fireback, "inconel screen," stainless cat, etc.) and computer-generated tolerances are some of the stove's definite strong points.

2. along the same lines: the careful positioning of the cat (facing forward, well-screened from fly ash and flame impingement) and the wonderful labyrinthine exhaust path (double-s) with heat-exchange fins are all strong (though still only conceptual) pluses for me.

3. but: do these promising design elements provide any better real-world performance? Is there any evidence that they do?

4. and: still not sure what the "hybrid" nature of the design is supposed to offer. Greater max outputs than cat stoves generally do? Additional cleaning of gasses that cats don't generally burn well? Longer, cleaner medium burns (where the two styles are overlapping)? Better light show (seems clear, but hopefully not the main reason)? Would be nice to see the "argument" that's behind the design, now that it's real (beyond the interesting but vague stuff on the blog).

5. someone mentioned that Tom M (Woodstock boss) at the open house was interested in what his customers want from the Progress. I can offer my wishes! Long burn (longer the better), controllable burn (high: real-world usability, no runaway fires; low: long, steady output). Rock-solid durability is a given. Decent looks comes in a distant third.

6. price. 3,600 is high enough that it basically brings every other stove into competition. What does the Progress offer that all the others don't? At this point (obviously premature) it looks like no one feature or killer combination (not the cleanest, not the longest-burning, not the most convective or radiant, not the most controllable, etc.). Rather, it's offering itself as the finest blend of many desirable things: very clean-burning, quite long-burning, the appeal of soapstone, very pretty fireshow, quite stylish-looking, the panache of new technology. It's certainly arguable that no other stove offers as nice a combination, at such a comparatively high level, of these features.

7. premium product. This is part of the wonder of the stove, but also a direction in which I'd hope its advertising-positioning doesn't go too far astray. The open-house pictures are quite amazing: the detail of the design: the inlaid and relief aspects of the castings (e.g., the imprinted name on the block-off-plate), the carefully colored-in "green leaf" emblem; the leaf emblem on the top-lid latch; the name even printed on the interior retainer bracket to hold the soapstone--all these speak to an amazing attention to detail, design, and craftsmanship. BUT: I do want the high-tech design to bear more on the amazing functionality of the stove than on its amazing appearance. I'm hoping that it's not called the "hybrid" simply to exploit the current fashion for calling everything "green" or "advanced."

8. I think what I'm mainly missing so far is the argument that explains the excellence of the stove and its (future) premium price. What exactly does Woodstock want us to think, notice, and appreciate in its nice new stove? There's a lot of conceptual and suggestive stuff on the blog, and some sort-of-promising EPA results--but so far, no clear, sustained, cohesive explanation that puts everything together. Of course, there's plenty of time to get this in place!

9. putting things in perspective (for me). Here's a bottom-line consideration for me. If Woodstock told me tomorrow that the Progress could reliably burn for ~20+ hours, at 8-12k btus/hr, with the addition of a thermostat option that they're already working on/committed to, while maintaining a 70-80k max output, I'd be next in line to buy it, even at the higher price. This would vault the Progress functionally to the level of the BK Princess (similar firebox size) and put it over the top with good-looks, soapstone, novelty, etc. That would be a stove worth paying an awful lot for. And it's a spot in the current market that is just waiting to be filled.


Still premature for any answers to these I'm sure. But fun to think about!

 

[leeave96]

No offense to Pen, but his was a plain basement install that didn't help me at all. Hiram's setup helped me out, and there were two others that posted recently that had theirs in a nice fireplace that helped illustrate how the stove would look in a walk-in fireplace.

I hear where you are coming from. FWIW, I had the chance to see a nice set-up of a Lopi Endeaveor this past summer at an Uncle's house while on vacation. It's a plain basic looking steel stove - but looked impressive on his hearth. I think it was a pedistal install. A big black steel stove.

That stove helped me rationalize my Englander 30 from a "looks" standpoint, the Englander being wider, but otherwise similar - a big black steel stove.

Some things that have made the stove much nicer looking in appearance, IMHO, was chainging out the pedistal to legs and burning E/W when you don't need to pack the stove full. The E/W burn is really makes the stove look great with that big window.

But, I llike the looks of my Woodstock better and it is easier to operate and control - for me. I've stil got a learning curve for the Englander so take some of my control comments with a grain of salt.

I don't know what I'll do for this stove in the future, might swap it out for a nicer looking stove, but for now I think the Englander is a great value, looks pretty good too.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the new PH operates over the next few years. I'm also interested in seeing how the new VC Defiant 2in1 holds-up/operates in cat mode as I view that as a secondary/cat burn combo too.

Bill

 

[BrowningBAR]

No offense to Pen, but his was a plain basement install that didn't help me at all. Hiram's setup helped me out, and there were two others that posted recently that had theirs in a nice fireplace that helped illustrate how the stove would look in a walk-in fireplace.

I hear where you are coming from. FWIW, I had the chance to see a nice set-up of a Lopi Endeaveor this past summer at an Uncle's house while on vacation. It's a plain basic looking steel stove - but looked impressive on his hearth. I think it was a pedistal install. A big black steel stove.

That stove helped me rationalize my Englander 30 from a "looks" standpoint, the Englander being wider, but otherwise similar - a big black steel stove.

Some things that have made the stove much nicer looking in appearance, IMHO, was chainging out the pedistal to legs and burning E/W when you don't need to pack the stove full. The E/W burn is really makes the stove look great with that big window.

But, I llike the looks of my Woodstock better and it is easier to operate and control - for me. I've stil got a learning curve for the Englander so take some of my control comments with a grain of salt.

I don't know what I'll do for this stove in the future, might swap it out for a nicer looking stove, but for now I think the Englander is a great value, looks pretty good too.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the new PH operates over the next few years. I'm also interested in seeing how the new VC Defiant 2in1 holds-up/operates in cat mode as I view that as a secondary/cat burn combo too.

Bill

I will probably be a 30NC owner by next winter. I need to update the Vigilant to reduce wood consumption and increase burn times. Ideally a Defiant or Woodstock PH would be purchased, but the costs will prohibit this in the short term. So a 30NC it is.

 

[Hass]

There's nothing wrong with simple. It's my preference also. How well the Progress stands up over time will take several seasons of regular use. It may be fine though. There are several original VC stoves with bypass doors still pulling their weight, year after year. Woodstock takes a lot of pride in what they create and they stand behind their products, so I'm hoping it's a winner. It's a bit too Victorian styled for my taste, but if it performs well running 24/7, year after year, burning cleanly over a wide temperature range, then it starts looking pretty good.

I think the real sticking point will be the actual price. $3,600 is no drop in the bucket. It will be interesting to see how this effect sales and if that truly is the price they stick with.

Because, at that price point, they are at the upper end of stove costs. The other four models they currently sell compared well to the pricing of other stoves in their range. This one does not. A buyer could by a Firelight or a VC Defiant, or an Isle Royal for about $1,000 less than the final cost of the new Woodstock and get the same amount of heat (in theory, based on specs). And all of those stoves can be seen and touched locally.

When your price point compares to other stoves, the direct mail concept isn't a big hurdle. When your product is viewed as greatly more expensive than seemingly comparable products, the direct mail hurdle could be a bit more of an issue.

It may be a quality stove, but at a minimum of a thousand dollars more than it's competitors will make it a tough sell.

For 3600, you can jump up to a BK Chinook for 200 more.
Get burn times twice as long, and be capable of much lower btu heat outputs (in the range of 4-5k btu on low)
and gain the convenience of a Thermostat.

 

[Kansasplains]

Here are some EPA ratings for the PH that I got in an email from Woodstock. I haven't seen it on the website yet.

EPA test results on the Progress Hybrid:
-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in the last 20 years
-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves
-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove

So at least it sounds like the EPA likes the stove. Maybe we'll get some input from some of the guys who went to their open house this weekend.

 

[Danno77]

Well, say what we will about this stove, Woodstock is doing something right. There are just as many threads on the PH as any other stove and nobody even owns one.

I don't think I noticed the EPA email (again, from Woodstock, even though I don't own a Woodstock) have they posted any other details on the testing?

 

[Kansasplains]

This was just in an email reminder for the open house this weekend. It wasn't really an official EPA report or anything like that.

 

[Danno77]

This was just in an email reminder for the open house this weekend. It wasn't really an official EPA report or anything like that.

AHHHHHH, saw that and said "meh, I already know this from the forum" and dropped it into the trash. That'll teach me.

 

[Hass]

Here are some EPA ratings for the PH that I got in an email from Woodstock. I haven't seen it on the website yet.

EPA test results on the Progress Hybrid:
-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in the last 20 years
-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves
-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove

So at least it sounds like the EPA likes the stove. Maybe we'll get some input from some of the guys who went to their open house this weekend.

Wow, I'm curious on the max btu now.
Did they post any efficiency info yet?

 

[Todd]

Here are some EPA ratings for the PH that I got in an email from Woodstock. I haven't seen it on the website yet.

EPA test results on the Progress Hybrid:
-2nd highest BTU output of any woodstove tested by EPA in the last 20 years
-Low 1.33 gm/hr EPA emissions - the best of any high output stoves
-Greatest range of output of any EPA approved stove

So at least it sounds like the EPA likes the stove. Maybe we'll get some input from some of the guys who went to their open house this weekend.

Wow, I'm curious on the max btu now.
Did they post any efficiency info yet?

I've been waiting to see this info as well. I thought someone would of asked for this info at the open house.

 

[Danno77]

I think the btu listed on their website is 80,000

 

[Danno77]

What's the ONE higher BTU stove? The USSC 3000 is rated at over 120k, is that it?

 

[Todd]

I think the btu listed on their website is 80,000

I think that was their estimate before testing. If they claim that it was the 2nd highest Btu output tested in the last 20 years it should be higher.

 

[mhrischuk]

Equinox isn't cheap either listing at $4250. BTU 120,000. I just noticed the door springs yesterday when removing the door to clean this thing up and paint. I don't think it would matter if they broke.

 

[ddddddden]

Some folks wouldn't pay a dime more than a steel stove costs for a stone stove, but there is a market for stone stoves. In this niche, there are exactly 2 players: Hearthstone and Woodstock. If the Hearthstone Mansfield lists for $3400, then asking $3600 for the Woodstock would not be unreasonable. That said, the list price on the Fireview is $2800, but I don't think anyone has ever paid that much for one. I don't see why the New Stove would not be included in the ~ $500 off sales that Woodstock frequently has, making it attractively priced, compared to the Mansfield. Also, I think it may be possible that the $3600 list price is being inferred (even by the person to whom BAR spoke) from the current "extra 33% off" special on the Fireview and Keystone. $2400 would reflect 33% off of $3600, but the site doesn't say that the New Stove is 33% off, just that it has special intro pricing. . .

 

[ddddddden]

p.s. Don't be a hater.