I do not have experience with a Jotul Oslo, but I looked up the firebox size, and I found some estimates on Hearth that said it was about 2.2 cubic feet of usable volume. The manufacturer says that the Ashford is 2.9, I believe. I am currently sitting in front of my Sirocco, which is the same firebox as the Ashford, but without the cast iron cladding, and I can put a large amount of wood in there, but I've never measured to see if the 2.9 is really accurate. All things being equal, a larger firebox should yield longer burns with more btu's produced. I have heard reports that the Blaze King thermostat limits the high end enough that it can't produce enough heat, but I'd be surprised if that's a problem in a well-insulated house.
We live in Virginia, so a warmer climate than Connecticut, but even with the recent cold spell that has been quite sustained down here, our Sirocco has not struggled in any way and hasn't really had to be pushed. We've often burned just two loads a day, though for a day a two we added a quick small third load, but that was mostly just an opportunity to burn it on high to get rid of some punky poplar and clear the firebox of creosote. After one of those loads, we even let the stove go cold for a few hours because it would have been too warm had we stoked it right away. Come to think of it, it was probably still two loads a day, just that one of them was quick and hot, and the other was longer and lower.
Our house is new construction and well insulated and air sealed. We do have an outside air kit that brings fresh air to the stove. It heats approximately 2,700 square feet, the majority of which is on the main floor where the stove is fairly centrally located, but a good portion is up a flight of stairs. All our ceilings are the standard eight feet, however, so we don't have heat pocketing up in a ceiling area.
I will say that we have chosen to let our electric heat cycle from time to time during this cold snap just to move some warmer air to our unfinished basement and our conditioned attic, but the stove has not needed any supplementation. If we didn't want to circulate air to those other areas, the stove could easily take on more heating in our house.
I'm wondering about the two complaints about the Oslo, though. I can understand wanting longer burn time which can be achieved by any stove with a bigger firebox, but I am curious about the "not enough heat." Is it not enough heat ever, or is not enough heat with the loading schedule that the relative is able to maintain? Put another way, is it that stoking the Oslo round the clock doesn't provide enough heat, or is it that it's plenty warm in the evening with a good fire blazing, but the house cools before morning because the stove goes cold, and it's playing catch up after that?
I'm asking those questions, because if it's only a matter of needing a bigger firebox, the Ashford is larger from what I read, and that will be helpful. If the Oslo isn't able to provide enough heat even when stoked regularly, though, I would question the burning practices or the wood or the construction of the house causing something not to work well, and a different stove may well not help.
We do feel that we benefit a lot from the thermostatic control of the stove. A large tube stove would be too hot for us on many occasions. The drawback is the blackened glass that occurs when burning on low. People often say that burning a Blaze King on high negates the advantages of a cat as the burn times reduce to similarly sized non-cat stoves. That may well be true, but I haven't had to burn my stove on high regularly to find out. I think by keeping the house consistently warm, a high burn becomes less necessary, but again I live farther south and in perhaps a sunnier area. Maybe others with Blaze Kings in colder climates can speak to this. Does
@Poindexter still visit here?
@stoveliker ?
@Dieselhead ?
![[Hearth.com] Woodstove decision/heating](/talk/data/attachments/346/346008-13ec2e96d802ca415b16c7081b2ad63a.jpg?hash=V_SGHteWAr)
