Woodstock Keystone -advice,comments,suggestions

[phil san]

Well my 10 yr old VC Intrepid II 1990 is just not worth rebuilding for the 3rd time. Need to heat a den area app
600 sq ft with a second level. Leave the door open to move heat towards rest of the house which I heat with pellets.

The VC was just ok with 5 hr burns but maintenance as we know was a bummer! I did like the catalytic aspect as I got the longer burns.

Looking for long slow low heat burns. Have much everything on the forums just concerned since I have used many stoves over the years but never soapstone.

Looking for keystone owner comments.

 

[Todd]

I think the Keystone would be a great replacement for your old VC. Figure on your burn times doubling, I get easy 10 hour burns with mine and it throws plenty of heat for my 1200 sq ft. The ash pan system is also a plus on this stove.

 

[begreen]

I second the vote for a Keystone. You will love it.

 

[Woody Stover]

Great stove, and a great company backing it with expert advice and reasonably priced parts.

 

[leeave96]

I would recommend a Keystone. Mine is the best stove I've ever used, nice looking with a fire in it, super easy to operate and control, long burn times, and if it is in your living room out cold - like on July 19, 2013, it's still the nicest looking piece of furniture in the room.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

I still prefer the Fireview. It is a bit larger so another hour or two of burn time and we much prefer the looks of the Fireview. But either one will be a good upgrade.

 

[phil san]

I still prefer the Fireview. It is a bit larger so another hour or two of burn time and we much prefer the looks of the Fireview. But either one will be a good upgrade.

Yeah, I'm torn between the Fireview for the "old world aesthetic look" but have been leaning towards the keystone in lieu of the top flue. The Fireview would add about 5 1/2" with a T in depth.

Trying to find some real life pictures of each with a person by the stove. I built a cardboard box cut to size but I still can not visualize.

Called Woodstock today and locked in the sale price on either. Just need to decide.

Seems everyone agrees I can get long low temp burns and that is what I'm looking for. Just worried it may look like a monster in size.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

Phil, quite the difference. When I first saw the Fireview I laughed. Was amazed that they thought I could heat our home with that little stove. They got the last laugh, sort of. What we got was a stove that heated our home like we wanted and used only 50% or less of the amount of wood we had been burning. In addition, now we no longer had to close off part of the home in order to stay warm. We keep our home 80 degrees or higher all winter long. That may sound hot as it does to most but we did find there definitely is a difference and there is a "soft heat" from these stoves.

Not sure if you have the dimentions but here are some.

Total height: 28"
Height to center of flue (rear exit): 22 3/4"
Total width: 26"
Total depth: 18"

With our stove, we exit straight through the wall (about 1/2" rise per foot of horizontal pipe) then up along side of the house. No chase. No problem. We do have the rear heat shield.

The beast is heavy for sure but that is a definite plus for giving off the heat for a long period. And yes, we do some cooking on this stove too. We have with every stove we've ever owned. The picture below is one I took after building a wood rack to store wood on the porch (It has since been stained). Because the stove is so low, we raised the hearth 16". Both my wife and I have bad backs so we did not want to stoop to put wood in. The 16" proved to be ideal as we have a chair right by the stove. When wood is needed, we simply open that sliding glass door, grab a few sticks and come back in. Sit on chair and load the stove. It works for us.

 

[Todd]

Here's a video of lighting a Keystone from Woodstock, it might give you a better idea of the size.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

=

 

[phil san]

Phil, quite the difference. When I first saw the Fireview I laughed. Was amazed that they thought I could heat our home with that little stove. They got the last laugh, sort of. What we got was a stove that heated our home like we wanted and used only 50% or less of the amount of wood we had been burning. In addition, now we no longer had to close off part of the home in order to stay warm. We keep our home 80 degrees or higher all winter long. That may sound hot as it does to most but we did find there definitely is a difference and there is a "soft heat" from these stoves.

Hey, thanks, I previously read your thread, remember the pic. Trouble is the FV Iis listed as 20" depth and if I add a T connector to the rear it's another 5 3/4" added. Can't move the existing through the ceiling chimney pipe so the FV is going to stick out. I,m south of Boston, MA but don't want to drive 4 hours to the factory. At this point I'm starting to hedge back to the
Keystone. They are both great. Any one can PM me a few pics with someone standing near so I can visualize ze a size?

I built a cardboard box o n the hearth but it just ain't cutting it!

Not sure if you have the dimentions but here are some.

Total height: 28"
Height to center of flue (rear exit): 22 3/4"
Total width: 26"
Total depth: 18"

With our stove, we exit straight through the wall (about 1/2" rise per foot of horizontal pipe) then up along side of the house. No chase. No problem. We do have the rear heat shield.

The beast is heavy for sure but that is a definite plus for giving off the heat for a long period. And yes, we do some cooking on this stove too. We have with every stove we've ever owned. The picture below is one I took after building a wood rack to store wood on the porch (It has since been stained). Because the stove is so low, we raised the hearth 16". Both my wife and I have bad backs so we did not want to stoop to put wood in. The 16" proved to be ideal as we have a chair right by the stove. When wood is needed, we simply open that sliding glass door, grab a few sticks and come back in. Sit on chair and load the stove. It works for us.

View attachment 106597

 

[Woody Stover]

Just worried it may look like a monster in size.

Ks and Fv are about the same height, Fv is an inch or two wider and deeper. Ks is a smaller box on longer legs so there's more space between the box and the floor. The Fv looks more substantial but is still not a "big" stove. I'm keeping the Ks because it will do the job here, and I like the big window and the ash pan. You can see the combustor glowing from the couch. Shoveling the ashes isn't too big a deal, but I would rather not. Some ash pan systems are more trouble than they're worth, but the Keystone's is well-designed and a pleasure to use. The combustor is easier to get to on the FV....just lift the lid. You have to take off the flue exit cover plate on the Ks. No big deal, and not often done.

 

[phil san]

Ks and Fv are about the same height, Fv is an inch or two wider and deeper. Ks is a smaller box on longer legs so there's more space between the box and the floor. The Fv looks more substantial but is still not a "big" stove. I'm keeping the Ks because it will do the job here, and I like the big window and the ash pan. You can see the combustor glowing from the couch. Shoveling the ashes isn't too big a deal, but I would rather not. Some ash pan systems are more trouble than they're worth, but the Keystone's is well-designed and a pleasure to use. The combustor is easier to get to on the FV....just lift the lid. You have to take off the flue exit cover plate on the Ks. No big deal, and not often done.

 

[phil san]

Been burning stoves since jimmy carter days. ( ditch west, russo, nightingale, allnighter, napoleon, vc that I remember)' . Ash is no problem. Just watched all the you tube videos I could find and still can't decide. I love the FW looks, but really like the top venting of the Keystone, with all respect it just looks a bit too boxy IMHO.

 

[fox9988]

WS will put you in contact with local owners that are happy to let you come over and look at their stoves and talk to you about them. Most of us are very proud owners. I wanted the larger size of the FV, but went with the KS because of the top vent. After the fact I think I prefer the looks and I love the ash pan (as apposed to useless ash pans). Either way you will be a happy owner......guaranteed of your money back.

 

[fox9988]

On the outside, there is very little difference in the size of the three stoves. My KS still looks tiny to me.

 

[phil san]

WS will put you in contact with local owners that are happy to let you come over and look at their stoves and talk to you about them. Most of us are very proud owners. I wanted the larger size of the FV, but went with the KS because of the top vent. After the fact I think I prefer the looks and I love the ash pan (as apposed to useless ash pans). Either way you will be a happy owner......guaranteed of your money back.

I have heard the Keystone gives off a good amount of radiant heat from the large glass front. Not having experienced a soapstone stove burning but understanding the thermal concept, I don't want to miss that radiant heat feel up close during the winter.

Will I get that with either Keystone or FV?

 

[ddddddden]

I get plenty of radiant heat off of the Fv.

. . .Just worried it may look like a monster in size.

Neither of these stoves is a monster. The Fv is a medium and the KS is a medium-small, with usable firebox capacity of 1.8 and 1.4 cu ft respectively.(Large ~ 3 cu ft, and m0nster ~ 4 cu ft.)

There's a pic of someone standing next to a Fv on this page.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38210510@N08/

I dunno how much these numbers mean in real-world usage, but FWIW, the Fv tests ~ 5% more efficient than the KS.
(broken link removed to http://www.woodstove.com/2012-13-tax-credit)

Easy access to the cat on the Fv was mentioned earlier. . .lifting the lid also gives you direct access to the flue. Stove/chimney maintenance doesn't get any easier. If you like the looks of the Fv(looks even better in the flesh) I'd say you've found your next stove.

 

[Todd]

You'll get plenty of radiant heat from either one, maybe a little more from the Keystone larger glass. I found the heat output of both to be about the same at lower air settings which is what most people burn at. The Fireview has a little longer burn because of a slightly larger fire box.

 

[Woody Stover]

I get plenty of radiant heat off of the Fv.

I have heard the Keystone gives off a good amount of radiant heat from the large glass front. Not having experienced a soapstone stove burning but understanding the thermal concept, I don't want to miss that radiant heat feel up close during the winter.

Will I get that with either Keystone or FV?

Like Todd says, Keystone glass lets a lot of heat through right in front of it, but the stone on both stoves radiates in all directions. You can feel it 20' away.

 

[phil san]

I get plenty of radiant heat off of the Fv.


Neither of these stoves is a monster. The Fv is a medium and the KS is a medium-small, with usable firebox capacity of 1.8 and 1.4 cu ft respectively.(Large ~ 3 cu ft, and m0nster ~ 4 cu ft.)

There's a pic of someone standing next to a Fv on this page.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38210510@N08/

I dunno how much these numbers mean in real-world usage, but FWIW, the Fv tests ~ 5% more efficient than the KS.
(broken link removed to http://www.woodstove.com/2012-13-tax-credit)

Easy access to the cat on the Fv was mentioned earlier. . .lifting the lid also gives you direct access to the flue. Stove/chimney maintenance doesn't get any easier. If you like the looks of the Fv(looks even better in the flesh) I'd say you've found your next stove.

Ok going with the FV, wife made the decision based on the link to the pictures. Now I can blame you for any issue!! Ha ha.

Like I said, want this to be the last stove - can't wait for the fall!!

 

[ddddddden]

Excellent choice!

The Fv 205 has been in production for about 17 years now. It's unlikely that you will find any issues that have not already been addressed.

Regarding your install, you mentioned using a tee with 5.5" of horizontal displacement with the Fv vs. top venting with the KS. If you're installing the stove out in the room, you don't need a tee with the Fv; you can use a 90° elbow, which might save you a few inches of space. A tee would make it easier to sweep the chimney from the bottom, but if you sweep from the top, you can collect the sweepings by just lifting the lid of the Fv and reaching into the flue/elbow with a scooper.

Welcome to the Temple of the Cat!

 

[phil san]

Excellent choice!

The Fv 205 has been in production for about 17 years now. It's unlikely that you will find any issues that have not already been addressed.

Regarding your install, you mentioned using a tee with 5.5" of horizontal displacement with the Fv vs. top venting with the KS. If you're installing the stove out in the room, you don't need a tee with the Fv; you can use a 90° elbow, which might save you a few inches of space. A tee would make it easier to sweep the chimney from the bottom, but if you sweep from the top, you can collect the sweepings by just lifting the lid of the Fv and reaching into the flue/elbow with a scooper.

Welcome to the Temple of the Cat!

Yes, cleaned the VC top to bottom also. Is the elbow less in depth than the T? Was going T because I thought it was 1.5 in shorter. Elbow would be less expensive also.

 

[Todd]

You might be able to cut that elbow down a bit on the male end where it slides into the exhaust collar so it will save you a few inches of clearance. I cut off about an inch on mine and recrimped it so I could set my Fireview a little further back on my hearth. There are different sized 90 elbows out there as well some are bigger than others to give the exhaust an easier flow.

If you go double wall pipe you probably need an exhaust collar adapter which will add a couple inches.

 

[ddddddden]

. . .Is the elbow less in depth than the T? Was going T because I thought it was 1.5 in shorter. . .

I dunno. . .I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the elbow option. I have the impression that many people who use a tee do so for the cleanout, which isn't really necessary with the Fv since you can lift the lid and shove your arm up the flue. Dimensions of tees and elbows probably vary a bit with different brands. One of the chimney pros around here will probably be able to tell you your best option. Maybe start a new thread asking for shallow tee/elbow suggestions. . .

 

[Todd]

Woodstock should have their own homemade shallow 90 elbow to cut down clearances. You could almost make one that would make it look like a top vent.