HVAC-Talk: Heating, Air & Refrigeration Discussion banner

Honeywell WiFi RTH8580WF Cycles too often

4 reading
10K views 3 replies 3 participants last post by  curiousB  
#1 ·
I have two of the above thermostats controlling two furnaces zoned to the main and second story of my home. The furnaces are 20 years old 80% *** (singles stage) units (Lennox).

I've noticed over the years the furnaces seemed to short cycle and run frequently. I finally decided to do something about it and set up a monitoring system to track the furnaces for a few days. I found that the main floor furnace was running for less that 5 minutes 55% of the time and the second floor was running 24% of the time less than 5 minutes. My thinking was the heat exchanger is just getting warmed up and its being shut off only to turn on again in 10 or so minutes.

So I explored the CPH setting in the secret parameters mode of the thermostat and found parameter 240 set to 5 meaning the furnace should attempt to cycle 5 times per hour with an 80% furnace. So I changed the setting to "3" which is recommended for two stage and more efficient furnaces. I reran the data collection for a couple days. Here are the results:



So I am thinking the run algorithms in the Honeywell thermostats are flawed. While seeking to achieve a tight temperature control and trend to the set CPH level they don;t account for short cycling and the inefficiency that creates. The algorithms (in my opinion) should have some notion of shortest heat cycle time and whenever there is a heat call they run at least that long. Sure you'll get some temperature overshoot but the cumulative wear and tear on a furnace caused by the current algorithms and the related fuel inefficiency is a bigger problem in my mind.

Anyway despite the users manual saying otherwise I recommend anyone using these thermostats on a single stage gas furnace to set parameter 240 to "3" and not the "5" Honeywell recommends. That's my 2 cents on the subject.
 
#2 ·
I have two of the above thermostats controls two furnaces zoned to the main and second story of my home. The furnaces are 20 years old 80% *** (singles stage) units (Lennox).

I've noticed over the years the furnace seemed to short cycle and run frequently. I finally decided to do something about it and set up a monitoring system to track the furnaces for a few days. I found that the main floor furnace was running for less that 5 minutes 55% of the time and the second floor was running 24% of the time less than 5 minutes. My thinking was the heat exchanger is just getting warmed up and its being shut off only to turn on again in 10 or so minutes.

So I explored the CPH setting in the secret parameters mode of the thermostat and found parameter 240 set to 5 meaning the furnace should attempt to cycle 5 times per hour with an 80% furnace. So I changed the setting to "3" which is recommended for two stage and more efficient furnaces. I reran the data collection for a couple days. Here are the results:

240 @ 5 240 @ 3
main/2nd main/2nd
number of cycles 77/93 16/43
Cycling less than 5 minutes 55%/24% 0%/0%
average run time 8.4/7.4 17.4/10.5
median run time 4/5 10/8
shortest run time 2/3 6/5
longest run 97/64 69/54 (recovery after setback)
average outdoor temp 27.2/27.2 34.3/34.3


So I am thinking the run algorithms in the Honeywell thermostats are flawed. While seeking to achieve a tight temperature control and trend to the set CPH level they don;t account for short cycling and the inefficiency that creates. The algorithms (in my opinion) should have some notion of shortest heat cycle time and whenever there is a heat call they run at least that long. Sure you'll get some temperature overshoot but the cumulative wear and tear on a furnace caused by the current algorithms and the related fuel inefficiency is a bigger problem in my mind.

Anyway despite the users manual saying otherwise I recommend anyone using these thermostats on a single stage gas furnace to set parameter 240 to "3" and not the "5" Honeywell recommends. That's my 2 cents on the subject.
The thermostats aren't flawed, your equipment is probably oversized, or the thermostats are in bad locations.
That's not to say honeywell's thermostats are perfect, but they're better than most.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#4 ·
I'm not saying Honeywell are junk (I quite like them) and you could be right my equipment is over sized. Over sized equipment is so common that it borderlines on epidemic. Given the high percentage of over sized systems wouldn't it be more prudent if the algorithms could account for that and at least give the user a trade off between absolute temperature accuracy (code named "comfort") vs. better efficiency and less wear and tear.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.