I never liked site-built stick framing for houses.
Building on-site is inefficient. Although a house is a physically large
product, it's still easier to move the product through the manufacturing
process than it is to move the manufacturing process to the site.
Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
Stick framing, that is, wood framing using studs and plates to form
walls, is too labor intensive and intricate. For residential
construction, Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) systems appear to be the
most competitive alternative - at least for exterior walls. And for
interior partitions, light-gauge steel-stud & -plate systems aren't such
a bad alternative.
Here's an article that discusses the inadequacies of stick framing:
(When evaluating US System author Eric Hunting comments, you should take
into account that he is commercially advocating his own alternative,
which uses aluminum structural members and SIPs. Nonetheless, his
arguments against wood stud framing are persuasive.)
http://www.ussystem-exhibit.com/architectureproject/overlooked.html )
SIP Manufactured Housing (or something like MH) seems to be the way of
the future. Concept 2000 is a prototype
http://buildingamerica.pnl.gov/SIPShouse.htm .
In a way it thinking, it's a pity. Framing with wood studs and nails
will become a lost art that perhaps only some old guys will know. It'll
be like blacksmithing.
But for my part, I'll be glad to see the studs disappear into scrap pile
of history.
--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> The early mass produced cars were the
> same way ... targeted towards the low-end of the market. As the
> industry matured, the manufacturers moved upscale.
And now we have upscale junk cars with record numbers of recalls.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
Light gauge metal is not stong enough for outside walls.
You might skinny by using them for a Ranch but they would never hold the
weight of a 2 story home.
They also rust out with just a small amount of moisture getting to them.
Now, 16 or 14 gauge studs are another story but the cost is high.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
"Js Walker Lazenby Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You framers better get some time in with light gauge metal.
Don't get caught wondering where all the work went . . .
when that time comes . . . and it will. Wood may be a
"renewable resource," if and when someone replants trees for
something other than paper mill pulp and chips, but its cost
effectiveness (forgetting other beneficial comparisons)
versus steel is rapidly vanishing. The biggest thing
standing in the way of steel is skilled framers are in
commercial work or nonexistant and builders and codes are
wary of change, as usual.
Jim
Ceiling problems were not related to truss problems but to the fact
that they move. Now nailers are used at the top of the walls so
sheetrock is not nailed at the ends of the truss. The truss can now
move up and down without causing the sheetrock seam at the wall and
ceiling to open up.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> EJ wrote:
> >
> > "Ignoramus3686" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I have a question. In those newfangled homes that are expected
to last
> > > only 25 years, what is the specific part of the home that will
> > > deteriorate? Will they rot faster than the more expensive homes?
Or
> > > what?
> > >
> > > i
> >
> > One problem is the quality of the truss joining plates. The nail
plates tend
> > to pull out of the wood in a decade or so and the roofs and
ceilings sag.
> > With a heavier snow load or hurricane winds the roof may collapse.
> >
> > The plates that use separate high-shear nails seem OK, though.
> >
> > EJ
>
> They have been using trusses for roofs around here for a
> long time, long before my 27 year old house was built. I
> don't see any sagging roofs and ceilings when I visit
> friend, and I have never heard of a problem from any of
> them. I know mine don't sag. We don't have hurricane
> winds, but plenty of houses near hear have snow loads.
> Maybe some places just use inferior materials.
Art Begun said:
>"Done right" does not happen very often in the construction industry
>near me.
Same here, in fact, not even close. In the South, building codes are
apparently near nonexistent, and the inspectors overlook almost
anything in favor of "kickbacks' from well-heeled firms.
Atlanta doesn't get much snow, so we get 3/8" OSB roof sheathing over
24" O.C. roof trusses - oftentimes built on site with old 2x4s and
plywood plates. No building wrap, no window flashing, no drip-edges,
and improper insulation and void sealing.
In my opinion, Ryland homes, a leading nationwide crap-home builder,
is one of the worse, but there are many following suit. Apparently,
the homebuyers of today are not educated enough to know what to look
for in a home's construction, and will buy anything that has a flashy
looking exterior and a few superficial amenities. Sagging roofs,
rotting siding, termites, plumbing problems, poor quality carpets,
shingles, and fixtures become all to apparent a couple of years down
the road. Paying interest on a 30 years mortgage for a home
constructed of crap that is worn out in 5-10 doesn't seem wise to me.
I can't believe that the banks even loan money on some of these
things.
In an area that was once comprised of well built homes put up by local
contractors with stable crews that they had worked with for years, we
now have land bought in en-mass by these developers, and bus-loads of
illegal workers who pour in to throw these things up.
$200,000 piles of crap sold to the hordes of idiots fleeing the
deteriorating cities of the north. It just ain't home anymore...
JMHO,
Greg G.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:18:31 GMT, AJScott <[email protected]>
wrote:
>some days that's all you've got when some super's riding
>your ass all goddamn day.
>
>AJS
>
It sounds like you're really engaged in your work, AJ! :-)
Tim Carver
[email protected]
ConRes wrote:
> In the beginning...
> Just kidding. A while back homes were built to last. Even though money was
> tight and the economy was in the dirt they knew if they built a home the
> right way they woudn't need to build another for a couple 3 generations.
> Now you look down the street after street of houses that pretty much have
> the same floor plan with a change from a hip to a gable roof and you've got
> your typical house. These are expected to have an average useable life of
> 25 years with little to no maintenance. The reason for this is that they
> are slapped together in a few months time becuase the developer needs people
> in the houses to make any money off the development of the property.
> I don't think handyman was saying that your house in particular was only
> going to last 25-50 years. I don't want to speak for him but I think the
> point he was trying to get across was that all these people start going with
> the easiest possible method of construction - at least what they think is
> the easiest - because a crane lifts the wall in place instead of 4 strong
> backs.
> I agree with handyman 100% - for the most part people want something called
> instant gratification with little or no money spent. So to accomodate that
> they built plants that all they do is build walls on an assembly line all
> day long. And here is the whole point of my post which supports handyman's
> post.
>
> They have the same quality issues in the plant as we do in the field.
> The difference is that I'm in the field and can control these quality
> issues.
> SIPS - although it's very functional in some respects and will probably work
> for that row after row of houses.
True the same quality issues exist, but in a plant the potential is
there to make much higher quality structures using jigs for precise
alignment, etc. I'm not saying it is done this way, but the potential
is certainly there. Virtually every product that was once made by hand
is now made in a factory with MUCH higher quality and consistency at a
much lower price. Everything from wheels to cars to airplanes. Even
expensive hand made custom cars typically don't have the reliability of
the cheapest Toyota. To argue that a field built structure is
inherently higher quality is ludicrous. Field built structures get
rained on, etc., whereas a factory built structure can be constructed in
a clean, precise environment if the manufacturer so chooses. I think
the reality is that current manufactured housing is targeting the
low-end mass market and the quality reflects that. It isn't inherent in
being a manufactured structure. The early mass produced cars were the
same way ... targeted towards the low-end of the market. As the
industry matured, the manufacturers moved upscale. I suspect this will
happen in manufactured housing over time.
Matt
In article <[email protected]>, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<[email protected]> writes:
>True the same quality issues exist, but in a plant the potential is
>there to make much higher quality structures using jigs for precise
>alignment, etc. I'm not saying it is done this way, but the potential
>is certainly there. Virtually every product that was once made by hand
>is now made in a factory with MUCH higher quality and consistency at a
>much lower price. Everything from wheels to cars to airplanes. Even
>expensive hand made custom cars typically don't have the reliability of
>the cheapest Toyota. To argue that a field built structure is
>inherently higher quality is ludicrous. Field built structures get
>rained on, etc., whereas a factory built structure can be constructed in
>a clean, precise environment if the manufacturer so chooses. I think
>the reality is that current manufactured housing is targeting the
>low-end mass market and the quality reflects that. It isn't inherent in
>being a manufactured structure. The early mass produced cars were the
>same way ... targeted towards the low-end of the market. As the
>industry matured, the manufacturers moved upscale. I suspect this will
>happen in manufactured housing over time.
>
>
>Matt
>
Matt,
I agree with you. We have been looking into Modular built homes. What I have
seen so far are very well built homes. The last one we looked at was being
built for a lawyer. It was 4000 sq. ft. with another approx. 1000 sq. ft. left
unfinished for future use. Everything in the house was quality. 16" center
walls and floors. Walls were all 2" x 6" floors 2" x 12".
The only thing I problem I saw were the floors. They seemed to be getting
thrashed. The owner pushed her floor guy to put in the pre-finished wood floors
before the site guys could get in and do what they had to do. There were some
stress cracks in one of the rooms. But were fixed on site. I saw one side light
window next to the entry door broken. That was it.
Now compare that to what I've seen on sites where the builders were putting up
houses. OSB underlayment on floors so thrashed from rain and snow that I don't
know how they were going to be able to put anything on top of it. Ceiling studs
that have been patched together with screws to lengthen them. The contractor
said oh yeah they are just as strong if not stronger. Placement of cabinets
wrong. So much that the water and drain pipes were in the middle of the
cabinet. Kitchen cabinets that were the wrong color and installed anyway.
Houses left open to the weather for as long as a year waiting for subs. Some of
the worse finish work I have ever seen. The list goes on. These builders were
getting between $135.00 and $175.00 a sq. ft.
Compare this to a house that is built inside of a building. Buttoned up for
transport with a heavy cardboard to protect the inside from weather. Brought to
the site on tractor trailers. Set in position and sealed from the weather with
in 8 hours. How can you beat that with a site built? You are taking a chance
with any contractor. They are only as good as they can control their subs and
even at that weather plays a hugh roll.
I am not saying there are not contractors out there that are really good at
what they do. But finding one you can trust is the hard part. Not me I'm tired
of trying. We are looking into the Modular homes. These are not trailers. These
are factory stick built homes. Made with about 30 percent more wood then the
national average site stick built home. These other guys will have to do better
at convincing me these homes are not built above average for the money.
Roy
Roy
When I first heard of modular homes, I could see the advantages right away.
The potential for much higher quality at a reduced price. The contractors,
apparently, also saw the possibilities. They lobbied the state government to
classify any non site built home as a mobile home (trailer to us older
types) ensuring that they would never reach their full potential.
"Roy Neudecker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >True the same quality issues exist, but in a plant the potential is
> >there to make much higher quality structures using jigs for precise
> >alignment, etc. I'm not saying it is done this way, but the potential
> >is certainly there. Virtually every product that was once made by hand
> >is now made in a factory with MUCH higher quality and consistency at a
> >much lower price. Everything from wheels to cars to airplanes. Even
> >expensive hand made custom cars typically don't have the reliability of
> >the cheapest Toyota. To argue that a field built structure is
> >inherently higher quality is ludicrous. Field built structures get
> >rained on, etc., whereas a factory built structure can be constructed in
> >a clean, precise environment if the manufacturer so chooses. I think
> >the reality is that current manufactured housing is targeting the
> >low-end mass market and the quality reflects that. It isn't inherent in
> >being a manufactured structure. The early mass produced cars were the
> >same way ... targeted towards the low-end of the market. As the
> >industry matured, the manufacturers moved upscale. I suspect this will
> >happen in manufactured housing over time.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
>
> Matt,
>
> I agree with you. We have been looking into Modular built homes. What I
have
> seen so far are very well built homes. The last one we looked at was being
> built for a lawyer. It was 4000 sq. ft. with another approx. 1000 sq. ft.
left
> unfinished for future use. Everything in the house was quality. 16" center
> walls and floors. Walls were all 2" x 6" floors 2" x 12".
>
> The only thing I problem I saw were the floors. They seemed to be getting
> thrashed. The owner pushed her floor guy to put in the pre-finished wood
floors
> before the site guys could get in and do what they had to do. There were
some
> stress cracks in one of the rooms. But were fixed on site. I saw one side
light
> window next to the entry door broken. That was it.
>
> Now compare that to what I've seen on sites where the builders were
putting up
> houses. OSB underlayment on floors so thrashed from rain and snow that I
don't
> know how they were going to be able to put anything on top of it. Ceiling
studs
> that have been patched together with screws to lengthen them. The
contractor
> said oh yeah they are just as strong if not stronger. Placement of
cabinets
> wrong. So much that the water and drain pipes were in the middle of the
> cabinet. Kitchen cabinets that were the wrong color and installed anyway.
> Houses left open to the weather for as long as a year waiting for subs.
Some of
> the worse finish work I have ever seen. The list goes on. These builders
were
> getting between $135.00 and $175.00 a sq. ft.
>
> Compare this to a house that is built inside of a building. Buttoned up
for
> transport with a heavy cardboard to protect the inside from weather.
Brought to
> the site on tractor trailers. Set in position and sealed from the weather
with
> in 8 hours. How can you beat that with a site built? You are taking a
chance
> with any contractor. They are only as good as they can control their subs
and
> even at that weather plays a hugh roll.
>
> I am not saying there are not contractors out there that are really good
at
> what they do. But finding one you can trust is the hard part. Not me I'm
tired
> of trying. We are looking into the Modular homes. These are not trailers.
These
> are factory stick built homes. Made with about 30 percent more wood then
the
> national average site stick built home. These other guys will have to do
better
> at convincing me these homes are not built above average for the money.
>
> Roy
> Roy
CW wrote:
> state government to classify any non site built home as a mobile home
> (trailer to us older types) ensuring that they would never reach their
> full potential.
Yeah, really. Who wants to pay car taxes on his house?
One way I see people getting around that is to ship kits. I forget what the
percentage is, but they can ship pre-fab stud wall sections and whatnot and
still qualify as site built so long as some portion of it didn't come
strapped to a pallet.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Art Begun wrote:
> Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom sill is
> normally treated lumber for moisture and termite resistence. So
> what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB to it. Seems
> to defeat the purpose???
>
>
Generally, the sheathing isn't in contact with the concrete whereas the
sill is.
Matt
Js Walker Lazenby Jr wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Art Begun wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom
>>
> sill is
>
>>>normally treated lumber for moisture and termite
>>
> resistence. So
>
>>>what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB
>>
> to it. Seems
>
>>>to defeat the purpose???
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Generally, the sheathing isn't in contact with the
>
> concrete whereas the
>
>>sill is.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> It is? The bottom sill?
> Generally? Not according to the generally accepted
> definition of "generally."
> Jim
>
>
I don't know about where you live, but the common practice here is to
have the sill plate flush with the outside of the foundation wall. The
sheathing typically starts at the bottom of the sill and doesn't
continute downward overlapping the concrete or block foundation. So, at
most you have a small corner of the sheathing touching the concrete.
See figure 2 at this site for the detail as to how it is done around
here. Maybe your locale is more like figure 1, especially if you don't
need basement insulation, but even then the contact area between
sheating and concrete is very small at most. And if you use a termite
shield, it will have no contact at all.
http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/pdfs/lib_ks_residential_found_insulation.pdf
Matt
Greg wrote:
> Js Walker Lazenby Jr said:
>
>
>>It is? The bottom sill?
>>Generally? Not according to the generally accepted
>>definition of "generally."
>>Jim
>
>
> OK, always around HERE. We have basements, not slabs.
> I guess it depends on the idiot contractor.
>
>
> Greg G.
We have basements around here also and, if properly built, the sheathing
doesn't contact the concrete. See the link I just posted for JS to look
at to learn how to do it right.
Matt
Greg wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting said:
>
>
>
>>We have basements around here also and, if properly built, the sheathing
>>doesn't contact the concrete. See the link I just posted for JS to look
>>at to learn how to do it right.
>
>
> I agree, but they sometimes overlap the siding over the foundation, I
> suppose, to make it look 'trimed'. Who knows...
>
> Read my first post. <g>
>
>
> Greg G.
Yes, hard to account for poor workmanship. Done right, there is no
problem using PT wood only for the sill and not the sheathing.
Matt
Ignoramus3686 wrote:
> I have a question. In those newfangled homes that are expected to last
> only 25 years, what is the specific part of the home that will
> deteriorate? Will they rot faster than the more expensive homes? Or
> what?
The comment about 25 year life was either made tongue-in-cheek or out of
ignorance. Even mobile homes will last much longer than 25 years with
decent maintenance.
Matt
EJ wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus3686" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I have a question. In those newfangled homes that are expected to last
> > only 25 years, what is the specific part of the home that will
> > deteriorate? Will they rot faster than the more expensive homes? Or
> > what?
> >
> > i
>
> One problem is the quality of the truss joining plates. The nail plates tend
> to pull out of the wood in a decade or so and the roofs and ceilings sag.
> With a heavier snow load or hurricane winds the roof may collapse.
>
> The plates that use separate high-shear nails seem OK, though.
>
> EJ
They have been using trusses for roofs around here for a
long time, long before my 27 year old house was built. I
don't see any sagging roofs and ceilings when I visit
friend, and I have never heard of a problem from any of
them. I know mine don't sag. We don't have hurricane
winds, but plenty of houses near hear have snow loads.
Maybe some places just use inferior materials.
Ignoramus3686 wrote:
>
> In article <dd_Gb.466878$Dw6.1375962@attbi_s02>, EJ wrote:
> > "Ignoramus3686" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> I have a question. In those newfangled homes that are expected to last
> >> only 25 years, what is the specific part of the home that will
> >> deteriorate? Will they rot faster than the more expensive homes? Or
> >> what?
> >>
> >> i
> >
> > One problem is the quality of the truss joining plates. The nail plates tend
> > to pull out of the wood in a decade or so and the roofs and ceilings sag.
> > With a heavier snow load or hurricane winds the roof may collapse.
> >
> > The plates that use separate high-shear nails seem OK, though.
> >
> > EJ
> >
> >
>
> Thanks. I would be rather upset if such joining plates fell out after
> 10 years. Do such methods conform to building codes?
>
> i
Trusses have been within building codes in many places for
years, and no, the plates don't fall out in 10 years (unless
shoddily constructed by a ripoff firm). Practically all
houses here without a stand up attic use trusses for the
roofs because properly engineered (and they are here) the
use much less material so are less expensive and are
stronger than other types of contruction for a lesser cost.
Mark wrote:
>
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>> The early mass produced cars were the same way ... targeted towards
>> the low-end of the market. As the industry matured, the manufacturers
>> moved upscale.
>
>
>
>
> And now we have upscale junk cars with record numbers of recalls.
They didn't even have recalls in the days I'm talking about. Given
their complexity, modern cars are amazingly reliable and have very few
recalls.
Matt
Rubble, as in Europe, mud as in the desert, even hay bales will make
dwellings. What North America has is a result of abundant lumber. No
reason you can't build houses other ways, but we're a luxury-loving bunch
who want visually interesting dwellings rather than a pair of doublewides
slapped together. Makes Levittown look like a crazy quilt by comparison.
What's energy-efficient are apartments, and smaller ones, but we've had
abundant land, and more abundant money, so we're out there building 500+ sq
ft/person dwellings. Not likely to change unless we run out of land or
material, and money isn't likely to be the main factor in either, legal
restrictions are the only way.
New building codes could end stick-building in a day.
"Nehmo Sergheyev" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I never liked site-built stick framing for houses.
>
> Building on-site is inefficient. Although a house is a physically large
> product, it's still easier to move the product through the manufacturing
> process than it is to move the manufacturing process to the site.
> Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
> assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
SNIP of rest of opinion
handyman@c______.com writes:
>The "future" will offer lots of inferior "throw away" structures.
>Most current homes are only eapected to last 25 to 50 years. Yet,
>many old homes (that were stick built) continue to stand after a
>century or more.
I have a new home built in 2001 to replace a 1911 home originally built as
a cabin. The previous owner had not done any maintenance for a long time
and the roof was completely rooted and the siding was shot. The joists
had dry rot and the foundation needed repair. Renovation estimates came
in higher than the cost for a new house.
Why would my new stick-built house only last 25 to 30 years?
I didn't choose the lowest bidder for construction. I choose a builder
that was 20% higher in cost than the lowest bidder. This builder insists
on only the best work from his subcontractors. Everything was high
quality. Plywood was used instead of OSB where it mattered. I won't have
moisture problems due to new energy codes in Minnesota.
Brian Elfert
"Art Begun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If the house is on a crawlspace or basement floor joists and apron sit
> above the sill and walls above that but if on a slab (or if you are
> talking about the garage which is almost always a slab) the sill is on
> concrete and walls right above it. The sheathing should be no lower
> than the framing above the sill but plenty of times I've seen it low.
>
>
> "Js Walker Lazenby Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]...
> > > Art Begun wrote:
> > > > Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom
> > sill is
> > > > normally treated lumber for moisture and termite
> > resistence. So
> > > > what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB
> > to it. Seems
> > > > to defeat the purpose???
> > > Generally, the sheathing isn't in contact with the
> > concrete whereas the
> > > sill is.
> > It is? The bottom sill?
> > Generally? Not according to the generally accepted
> > definition of "generally."
i'm not sure where the question has evolved.
i beleive the damage-prevention intent(s) of foundations and sills are:
concrete foundation keeps all other house parts, including siding,
separated 6 inches from soil. this prevents rot.
concrete could crack, allowing termites a passage to the hi-cca ptf sill. i
assume ptf is too toxic for current strains of termites to chew into.
in old days, when sills were redwood, sheetmetal under sill could block
those termites, but often there's no sheetmetal in those older houses. so
the sill is supposed to be tremite proof. i haven't seen many sills, but
termites will "eat" redwood in contact with soil. perhaps moisture is a
necessary condition for termites to tunnel through redwood?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Which still have a sill where the wood meets the concrete, or whatever
nitpicking thin layer of what between.
I thought the PT was to keep the sill from rotting as it is exposed to
moisture, but I guess the folks in the termite areas have other ideas.
Anyway, it's to prevent rot in our building code.
Insecticide for the bugs....
<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Js Walker Lazenby Jr said:
>
> >It is? The bottom sill?
> >Generally? Not according to the generally accepted
> >definition of "generally."
> >Jim
>
> OK, always around HERE. We have basements, not slabs.
> I guess it depends on the idiot contractor.
>
>
> Greg G.
Jimmy responds:
>>Same here, in fact, not even close. In the South, building codes are
>>apparently near nonexistent, and the inspectors overlook almost
>>anything in favor of "kickbacks' from well-heeled firms.
>
>That would be a different problem, wouldn't it ?
Sounds like it. And there are areas of the south with sensible building codes,
plus very strong enforcement and no kickbacks.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Greg G notes:
>
>>Sounds like it. And there are areas of the south with sensible building
>codes,
>>plus very strong enforcement and no kickbacks.
>>
>>Charlie Self
>
>Yea, I noticed that after posting. I should have said, "Where I live
>in the South." A bit of generalization due to my ranting...
I've noticed some awful building code violations in areas in FL that should be
immune to such things, while I've seen excellent enforcement of reasonable
codes in semi-rural areas in VA. Of course, it does help if your boss code
enforcement guy is a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sgt. who was a combat
engineer with 'Nam combat experience. No way to buy him. No way to scare him.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Charlie Self wrote:
> Of course, it does help if your boss code
> enforcement guy is a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sgt. who was a combat
> engineer with 'Nam combat experience. No way to buy him. No way to scare him.
>
And no way to bull shit him. Rumor has it that would be fatal to the
largest contractor in my area.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
Greg G asks:
>Charlie Self said:
>
>>Of course, it does help if your boss code
>>enforcement guy is a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sgt. who was a combat
>>engineer with 'Nam combat experience. No way to buy him. No way to scare
>him.
>
>Does he have a brother? A twin? <g> We sure could use him here...
Probably not many 'Nam vets still looking for that kind of job, but I wouldn't
be surprised to find that there are retired Gul War I combat engineers who are
fully qualified, Marines and Army. You might even find some SeaBees.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal."
Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Charlie Self said:
>I've noticed some awful building code violations in areas in FL that should be
>immune to such things, while I've seen excellent enforcement of reasonable
>codes in semi-rural areas in VA. Of course, it does help if your boss code
>enforcement guy is a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sgt. who was a combat
>engineer with 'Nam combat experience. No way to buy him. No way to scare him.
I grew up here, but they certainly didn't build things like they do
now. As a child, I used to climb around in and study the construction
techniques of the houses they built behind my neighborhood.
I lived in N. Florida for 10 years, and the Centex built house I had
there was built well and energy efficiently.
I moved back here, after the land barons took over, and the stuff they
throw up now is unbelievable. I have a friend who lives beside one of
these huge, tree barren Ryland developments, and I could not believe
the things they did, and the people who were doing it - unsupervised.
One house sat for 8 months with no siding and no wrap. When the
materials came in, they just threw it on. Warped framing and all.
There are distinctive waves in both the walls and the roofline. It
sold almost immediately to some poor schmuck. Almost all of the
houses have had the roofs replaced already, and the homes are less
than 5 years old.
It really pisses me off to see this, because in my opinion, this kind
of construction is going to force the value of OUR homes WAY down in a
few years, not to mention the rabid development, traffic and strip
malls they attract.
</rant>
I have moved so many times, only to have this type of development show
up within a year or so. I am afraid of moving again, for fear they
will find me no matter where I go. I'm tired of moving!
Greg G.
Art Begun said:
>Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom sill is
>normally treated lumber for moisture and termite resistence. So
>what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB to it. Seems
>to defeat the purpose???
The sill plate is generally more subject to moisture damage.
Termites won't eat it, but they will tunnel over it - DAMHIKT.
The sheathing can be replaced, the sill plate cannot - short of
tearing out much framing. Code doesn't allow overlapping joints on a
doubled sill plate within a given distance.
They used to put a simple metal termite shield under the sill plate,
but I see that these idiot builders now omit it to save $50 - at least
in these parts, which is termite central. Well, here, Texas and
Florida.
FWIW,
Greg G.
"Nehmo Sergheyev" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
> assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
> SIP Manufactured Housing (or something like MH) seems to be the way of
> the future. Concept 2000 is a prototype
> http://buildingamerica.pnl.gov/SIPShouse.htm .
>
> But for my part, I'll be glad to see the studs disappear into scrap pile
> of history.
Other methods are also taking off. Check out www.integraspec.com and
www.polysteel.com for good alternatives to wood framing. Very energy
efficient.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
"Done right" does not happen very often in the construction industry
near me.
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greg wrote:
> > Matthew S. Whiting said:
> >
> >
> >
> >>We have basements around here also and, if properly built, the
sheathing
> >>doesn't contact the concrete. See the link I just posted for JS
to look
> >>at to learn how to do it right.
> >
> >
> > I agree, but they sometimes overlap the siding over the
foundation, I
> > suppose, to make it look 'trimed'. Who knows...
> >
> > Read my first post. <g>
> >
> >
> > Greg G.
>
> Yes, hard to account for poor workmanship. Done right, there is no
> problem using PT wood only for the sill and not the sheathing.
>
>
> Matt
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
said...
> Which still have a sill where the wood meets the concrete, or whatever
> nitpicking thin layer of what between.
>
> I thought the PT was to keep the sill from rotting as it is exposed to
> moisture, but I guess the folks in the termite areas have other ideas.
> Anyway, it's to prevent rot in our building code.
>
> Insecticide for the bugs....
Most sills that I have noticed sit on some kind of very thin foam
insulation which sits on a piece of sheet metal which sits on the
foundation. The foam is obviosly to fill any potential gaps due to non-
straightness of the wood and stop air infiltration into the basement. The
metal is probably a first line of defense against termites.
Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
> I never liked site-built stick framing for houses.
>
> Building on-site is inefficient. Although a house is a physically large
> product, it's still easier to move the product through the manufacturing
> process than it is to move the manufacturing process to the site.
> Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
> assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
I worked for one of these places.
I've seen walls and trusses with knots so large the boards broke during
installation.
I've seen so much bark on studs nailers had to be scabbed so the
drywallers had something to nail to.
I'm of the opinion your product is just that , a product, Something for
you to make money from, not a house, certainly not a home, and
definitely junk.
I base this opinion on what I've seen with manufactured housing.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
In the beginning...
Just kidding. A while back homes were built to last. Even though money was
tight and the economy was in the dirt they knew if they built a home the
right way they woudn't need to build another for a couple 3 generations.
Now you look down the street after street of houses that pretty much have
the same floor plan with a change from a hip to a gable roof and you've got
your typical house. These are expected to have an average useable life of
25 years with little to no maintenance. The reason for this is that they
are slapped together in a few months time becuase the developer needs people
in the houses to make any money off the development of the property.
I don't think handyman was saying that your house in particular was only
going to last 25-50 years. I don't want to speak for him but I think the
point he was trying to get across was that all these people start going with
the easiest possible method of construction - at least what they think is
the easiest - because a crane lifts the wall in place instead of 4 strong
backs.
I agree with handyman 100% - for the most part people want something called
instant gratification with little or no money spent. So to accomodate that
they built plants that all they do is build walls on an assembly line all
day long. And here is the whole point of my post which supports handyman's
post.
They have the same quality issues in the plant as we do in the field.
The difference is that I'm in the field and can control these quality
issues.
SIPS - although it's very functional in some respects and will probably work
for that row after row of houses.
I'll keep swinging my hammer..
--
Rich
www.construction-resource.com
www.biltright.com
"Brian Elfert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> handyman@c______.com writes:
>
> >The "future" will offer lots of inferior "throw away" structures.
> >Most current homes are only eapected to last 25 to 50 years. Yet,
> >many old homes (that were stick built) continue to stand after a
> >century or more.
>
> I have a new home built in 2001 to replace a 1911 home originally built as
> a cabin. The previous owner had not done any maintenance for a long time
> and the roof was completely rooted and the siding was shot. The joists
> had dry rot and the foundation needed repair. Renovation estimates came
> in higher than the cost for a new house.
>
> Why would my new stick-built house only last 25 to 30 years?
>
> I didn't choose the lowest bidder for construction. I choose a builder
> that was 20% higher in cost than the lowest bidder. This builder insists
> on only the best work from his subcontractors. Everything was high
> quality. Plywood was used instead of OSB where it mattered. I won't have
> moisture problems due to new energy codes in Minnesota.
>
> Brian Elfert
Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
> I never liked site-built stick framing for houses.
> Building on-site is inefficient. Although a house is a physically large
> product, it's still easier to move the product through the manufacturing
> process than it is to move the manufacturing process to the site.
> Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
> assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
> Stick framing, that is, wood framing using studs and plates to form
> walls, is too labor intensive and intricate. For residential
> construction, Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) systems appear to be the
> most competitive alternative - at least for exterior walls. And for
> interior partitions, light-gauge steel-stud & -plate systems aren't such
> a bad alternative.
> Here's an article that discusses the inadequacies of stick framing:
> (When evaluating US System author Eric Hunting comments, you should take
> into account that he is commercially advocating his own alternative,
> which uses aluminum structural members and SIPs. Nonetheless, his
> arguments against wood stud framing are persuasive.)
> http://www.ussystem-exhibit.com/architectureproject/overlooked.html )
> SIP Manufactured Housing (or something like MH) seems to be the way of
> the future. Concept 2000 is a prototype
> http://buildingamerica.pnl.gov/SIPShouse.htm .
> In a way it thinking, it's a pity. Framing with wood studs and nails
> will become a lost art that perhaps only some old guys will know. It'll
> be like blacksmithing.
> But for my part, I'll be glad to see the studs disappear into scrap pile
> of history.
Here's my idea for building a home and it apparently works quite well as it
has been featured on shows like Bob Villa and "home time".
Start with your basic foundation. On top of the foundation lay a sill of a
4x4 6x6 or what ever your needs are.
Using proper 2x's you take two OSB panels uncut.
The front board is attached to the outside of the house, and the back board
to the inside.
Knowing how far to set your base horizontal board in between the two boards
will be done with experiments and knowledge.
Now make a sandwich affair using upright 2x's square everything off with the
outer boards.
Add in your other support boards according to the center desired. 12 or 16
inch.
Holes can be drilled through the upright boards easily for plumbing and
wiring before being erected.
You have a gap of no osb between the top of the board and existing outer
osb. So now you cut pieces to fit.
Assume you create 4'x8' panels.
Each panel can be constructed indoors anywhere it's convenient and shipped
easily to the site.
Insualtion can be added during construction.
At the site, you can easily erect the wall panels using as few as 2 people.
Join the sections by slipping inside the two panels, a foot wide piece and
staple together.
You could also join the sections using screws or bolts with the butting
uprights.
Since you know the panel construction is already squared, all you need to do
is to ensure the walls are plumb.
Your house is built in shorter time with less manpower.
Art Begun wrote:
> Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom sill is
> normally treated lumber for moisture and termite resistence. So
> what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB to it. Seems
> to defeat the purpose???
I can't say for sure, but I don't think termites care for the plywood for
some reason.
Could be all the glue in it.
One termite pest control guy said what they do is simple.
They "plant" cut 2x4's all around the house to give the termites to bite
into first, then they treat that area.
Of course, you could always build a moat around the house out of cement.
I have a question. In those newfangled homes that are expected to last
only 25 years, what is the specific part of the home that will
deteriorate? Will they rot faster than the more expensive homes? Or
what?
i
In article <VhmGb.31852$VB2.70066@attbi_s51>, ConRes wrote:
> In the beginning...
> Just kidding. A while back homes were built to last. Even though money was
> tight and the economy was in the dirt they knew if they built a home the
> right way they woudn't need to build another for a couple 3 generations.
> Now you look down the street after street of houses that pretty much have
> the same floor plan with a change from a hip to a gable roof and you've got
> your typical house. These are expected to have an average useable life of
> 25 years with little to no maintenance. The reason for this is that they
> are slapped together in a few months time becuase the developer needs people
> in the houses to make any money off the development of the property.
> I don't think handyman was saying that your house in particular was only
> going to last 25-50 years. I don't want to speak for him but I think the
> point he was trying to get across was that all these people start going with
> the easiest possible method of construction - at least what they think is
> the easiest - because a crane lifts the wall in place instead of 4 strong
> backs.
> I agree with handyman 100% - for the most part people want something called
> instant gratification with little or no money spent. So to accomodate that
> they built plants that all they do is build walls on an assembly line all
> day long. And here is the whole point of my post which supports handyman's
> post.
>
> They have the same quality issues in the plant as we do in the field.
> The difference is that I'm in the field and can control these quality
> issues.
> SIPS - although it's very functional in some respects and will probably work
> for that row after row of houses.
>
> I'll keep swinging my hammer..
>
In article <dd_Gb.466878$Dw6.1375962@attbi_s02>, EJ wrote:
> "Ignoramus3686" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I have a question. In those newfangled homes that are expected to last
>> only 25 years, what is the specific part of the home that will
>> deteriorate? Will they rot faster than the more expensive homes? Or
>> what?
>>
>> i
>
> One problem is the quality of the truss joining plates. The nail plates tend
> to pull out of the wood in a decade or so and the roofs and ceilings sag.
> With a heavier snow load or hurricane winds the roof may collapse.
>
> The plates that use separate high-shear nails seem OK, though.
>
> EJ
>
>
Thanks. I would be rather upset if such joining plates fell out after
10 years. Do such methods conform to building codes?
i
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> And now we have upscale junk cars with record numbers of recalls.
>
>
> They didn't even have recalls in the days I'm talking about. Given
> their complexity, modern cars are amazingly reliable and have very few
> recalls.
They didn't have recalls because the government hadn't gotten enough
guts to require them yet. Of course no one worried one bit about safety
in any case.
New cars are incredibly reliable. Scheduled service is often only every
30,000 miles. My first few cars were every 7500 miles.
Bill Seuret writes:
>>
>> They didn't even have recalls in the days I'm talking about. Given
>> their complexity, modern cars are amazingly reliable and have very few
>> recalls.
>
>They didn't have recalls because the government hadn't gotten enough
>guts to require them yet. Of course no one worried one bit about safety
>in any case.
If no one worried about safety, why were mechanical brakes developed and placed
in cars during the late '30s? If no one worried about safety, why was safety
glass developed and used? Why did front disc brakes get developed and come into
use (in the US) during the early '70s (much earlier on many specialized or
expensive European cars)? The list is a lot longer, probably never ending, as
the car is a never ending development process (when development money isn't ALL
wasted on new sheetmetal). The government isn't the be-all and end-all in
making demands for safety in vehicles.
>New cars are incredibly reliable. Scheduled service is often only every
>30,000 miles. My first few cars were every 7500 miles.
Scheduled service on some new cars is on the order of 100,000 miles if one
discounts the need for oil changes every 3-4,000 miles. Oil changes used to
come every 1000 miles, plugs and points needed changing at 10,000 miles (never
heard of 7500 mile tune-ups). Oil changes used to come with about 50 point
grease jobs, too, and it was a good idea to check the master cylinder brake
fluid level at each oil change.
Other details: stock shock absorbers weren't worth beans from the outset, and
only stayed that good for about 3000 miles; if you were lucky and the roads
were good, in the '50s, a bias ply tire would last 12,000 miles and the really
great ones rolled on for another 3000 or so. In 1957, headlights jumped up to
12 volts (from 6), while tires dropped to 14" tubeless from 15" tubed types.
Quartz-halogen lights, IIRC, came along a few years ago, but not at government
insistence. One of the problems I currently find with headlights is the lack of
standards. These new blue lights are incredibly rough on on-coming drivers if
the dimwit with the bright lights doesn't light a hand and hit the dimmer
switch.
I do have some questions, one of which is safety related: what the HELL
happened to the floor dimmer switch; what happened to vent windows. too?
Of course, the answer to both is the same: saves about a buck a vehicle to
change or leave them off.
Charlie Self
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Floor dimmer switches are short-lived in the rust belt, where salty shoes
> take 'em out in three-four years. Cars last longer'n that now.
>
> Vent windows spoil the aerodynamics, and as we know, it's cheaper to take
> the fuel penalty on air conditioning than on an open window.
>
Vent windows were also notorious for allowing for ready casual break-
ins.
Floor dimmer switches are short-lived in the rust belt, where salty shoes
take 'em out in three-four years. Cars last longer'n that now.
Vent windows spoil the aerodynamics, and as we know, it's cheaper to take
the fuel penalty on air conditioning than on an open window.
Of course, conspiracy is another approach....
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I do have some questions, one of which is safety related: what the HELL
> happened to the floor dimmer switch; what happened to vent windows. too?
>
> Of course, the answer to both is the same: saves about a buck a vehicle to
> change or leave them off.
>
George responds:
>
>Floor dimmer switches are short-lived in the rust belt, where salty shoes
>take 'em out in three-four years. Cars last longer'n that now.
Funny. I lived in the salt belt for 39 years and had to change one dimmer
switch in that time. And it wasn't due to salty shoes, but the fact that Chevy
mid-engine vans hung the damned switches from the outside of the floorboard
without ANY protection whatsoever.
Vent windows spoil what aerodynamics? At 75 or 80 mph? Pfui.
As I said, it saves about a buck a vehicle each. If that's a conspiracy, have
at it.
Charlie Self
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Vent windows spoil the aerodynamics, and as we know, it's cheaper to take
> the fuel penalty on air conditioning than on an open window.
AC is just about NO penalty today. I used to miss vent windows, but since I
have not smoked in almost 30 years, I don't need them. Fact is, with
climate control it is rare that I put the windows down and listen to all
that noise.
IMO, every car I've owned has been better made than the previous and the
ones I have now are truly excellent. Aside from normal wear items like
brakes, tires, oil changes, #1 is a '91 with 135,000 miles and needed rear
struts at 75K, a water pump at 95k. #2 is a 2001 with 77,000 miles and
still has two of the original tires and no repairs other than oil changes.
Neither has been back for warranty service. Back in the 50's and 60's, a
car would go back to the dealer with a list of 10 to 30 items needing
attention.
Another bonus if fuel mileage. Both cars have the 3.8 liter engine, but the
10 years between has advanced technology. The 91 is a Regal, the 2001 is a
larger LeSabre, but gets better gas mileage, faster acceleration and is a
few hundred pounds heavier.
Ed
"Art Begun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I contracted out for many years with a modular home manufacturer.
> Many of their employees buying new houses went with stick built houses
> when they could have gone modular. Often the stick built priced out
> cheaper and could be designed exactly as wanted.
>
>
My parents built a home from a modular company, their strength at the time
was you were able to design the home to your specs. Don't know if that is
available anymore given the mass produce mentality. Structurally the house
was fine, if only because my Father overbuilt everything. Thicker foundation
walls, 2x6 studded walls when that was unheard of, all plywood, not OSB, and
even a septic twice as large as necessary......... then!
Built as a finished shell, so we did all the roughing, elec. plumbing,
floors, walls, etc.
The guy next to them contracted with the same company but wanted a finished
house. He was constantly complaining about doors not closing, windows not
shutting, cracks in the walls and ceilings.
To make a long story short, after selling the house the next buyer
demolished it to build another, "Just to many problems".
When my parents sold theirs the guy who bought did so because of the way it
was built and has used the original structure to add two more floors, and an
addition off to the side.
Factory construction...........forget it, unless I can be on the floor
watching every piece of wood go together.
Dave
"Ignoramus3686" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a question. In those newfangled homes that are expected to last
> only 25 years, what is the specific part of the home that will
> deteriorate? Will they rot faster than the more expensive homes? Or
> what?
>
> i
One problem is the quality of the truss joining plates. The nail plates tend
to pull out of the wood in a decade or so and the roofs and ceilings sag.
With a heavier snow load or hurricane winds the roof may collapse.
The plates that use separate high-shear nails seem OK, though.
EJ
I'm not a termite expert but my understanding is that at least in NC,
there are subterranean termites every where. You put wood in the soil
you will get a bite.
"Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Art Begun wrote:
>
> > Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom sill is
> > normally treated lumber for moisture and termite resistence. So
> > what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB to it.
Seems
> > to defeat the purpose???
>
> I can't say for sure, but I don't think termites care for the
plywood for
> some reason.
> Could be all the glue in it.
> One termite pest control guy said what they do is simple.
> They "plant" cut 2x4's all around the house to give the termites to
bite
> into first, then they treat that area.
>
> Of course, you could always build a moat around the house out of
cement.
>
>
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Art Begun wrote:
> > Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom
sill is
> > normally treated lumber for moisture and termite
resistence. So
> > what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB
to it. Seems
> > to defeat the purpose???
> >
> >
>
> Generally, the sheathing isn't in contact with the
concrete whereas the
> sill is.
>
>
> Matt
It is? The bottom sill?
Generally? Not according to the generally accepted
definition of "generally."
Jim
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:47:36 -0600, "Nehmo Sergheyev"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I never liked site-built stick framing for houses.
>
>Building on-site is inefficient. Although a house is a physically large
>product, it's still easier to move the product through the manufacturing
>process than it is to move the manufacturing process to the site.
Hmmmmm,
That would mean bringing my toolbox, a few power tools, my ladders and
sawhorses, and possibly a generator to the site. Heck, I do that just
to fix a leaky roof (minus the generator).
>Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
>assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
Cheaper? NO.....
Bringing in a huge trailer, wide load permits, police escort, huge
crane to lift the thing in place, repair of moving cracks and damages,
etc.......
Safer? I know a guy who works at one of these places. These guys are
always getting injured and shot with nail guns (I'd rather hit my
thumb with my hammer).
Better quality? NO WAY. Cheap construction, one step above a trailer
house, often problems with leaks, and electrical wiring where the
sections meet. Sections do not always line up perfectly or level.
>Stick framing, that is, wood framing using studs and plates to form
>walls, is too labor intensive and intricate. For residential
Too labor intensive? Hmmmmmm, thats funny. I have been building this
way all my life, without machinery, and often without help. Except
for power saw and drill, I still use a hammer and nails. It's one
heck of a lot easier to carry pieces board by board, and look at all
the fuel and energy I save. It's only too labor intensive if you dont
know what you are doing.
>construction, Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) systems appear to be the
>most competitive alternative - at least for exterior walls. And for
>interior partitions, light-gauge steel-stud & -plate systems aren't such
>a bad alternative.
>Here's an article that discusses the inadequacies of stick framing:
>(When evaluating US System author Eric Hunting comments, you should take
>into account that he is commercially advocating his own alternative,
>which uses aluminum structural members and SIPs. Nonetheless, his
>arguments against wood stud framing are persuasive.)
>http://www.ussystem-exhibit.com/architectureproject/overlooked.html )
Yep, some advertiser making false claims to benefit his own sales !!!!
>SIP Manufactured Housing (or something like MH) seems to be the way of
>the future. Concept 2000 is a prototype
>http://buildingamerica.pnl.gov/SIPShouse.htm .
The "future" will offer lots of inferior "throw away" structures.
Most current homes are only eapected to last 25 to 50 years. Yet,
many old homes (that were stick built) continue to stand after a
century or more.
>In a way it thinking, it's a pity. Framing with wood studs and nails
>will become a lost art that perhaps only some old guys will know. It'll
>be like blacksmithing.
>
It will only be a lost art for those who are persuaded by marketing
companies into buying an inferior product with a high price tag.
>But for my part, I'll be glad to see the studs disappear into scrap pile
>of history.
And you work for which prefab housing corporation? How much are you
being paid to advertise in this manner, or are you just a spammer?
If the house is on a crawlspace or basement floor joists and apron sit
above the sill and walls above that but if on a slab (or if you are
talking about the garage which is almost always a slab) the sill is on
concrete and walls right above it. The sheathing should be no lower
than the framing above the sill but plenty of times I've seen it low.
"Js Walker Lazenby Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > Art Begun wrote:
> > > Here's a related question. In framed houses, the bottom
> sill is
> > > normally treated lumber for moisture and termite
> resistence. So
> > > what's the point of attaching non-treated plywood or OSB
> to it. Seems
> > > to defeat the purpose???
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Generally, the sheathing isn't in contact with the
> concrete whereas the
> > sill is.
> >
> >
> > Matt
>
> It is? The bottom sill?
> Generally? Not according to the generally accepted
> definition of "generally."
> Jim
>
>
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:%[email protected]...
> Light gauge metal is not stong enough for outside walls.
> You might skinny by using them for a Ranch but they would
never hold the
> weight of a 2 story home.
Never say "never," Jerry. Light gauge metal studs do now
and will continue to "hold the weight of a 2-story home."
Whatever you mean by "hold." And, whatever you mean by
"light gauge." Maybe you're talking about 22 or even 20 ga.
I don't know.
> They also rust out with just a small amount of moisture
getting to them.
> Now, 16 or 14 gauge studs are another story but the cost
is high.
Depends, Jerry. If the amount is small enough, nothing will
rust. And, by the same definition, if the amount is small
enough, wood won't rot.\
Anyway, galvanized steel studs better tollerate moisture . .
. even wet, liquid water than do wood studs.>
I'm advising you, Jerry, for your own best interest, you
should find out all you can about metal framing for
residences (single-family, as metal is already prevalent in
multi-story, multi-family). I'm sure the first mud hut
builders were relunctant to consider wood framing.
Jim
> JerryD(upstateNY)
>
Still pissed off that we haven't adopted metric, huh?
AJS
In article <[email protected]>,
"Nehmo Sergheyev" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I never liked site-built stick framing for houses.
>
> Building on-site is inefficient. Although a house is a physically large
> product, it's still easier to move the product through the manufacturing
> process than it is to move the manufacturing process to the site.
> Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
> assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
>
> Stick framing, that is, wood framing using studs and plates to form
> walls, is too labor intensive and intricate. For residential
> construction, Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) systems appear to be the
> most competitive alternative - at least for exterior walls. And for
> interior partitions, light-gauge steel-stud & -plate systems aren't such
> a bad alternative.
>
> Here's an article that discusses the inadequacies of stick framing:
> (When evaluating US System author Eric Hunting comments, you should take
> into account that he is commercially advocating his own alternative,
> which uses aluminum structural members and SIPs. Nonetheless, his
> arguments against wood stud framing are persuasive.)
> http://www.ussystem-exhibit.com/architectureproject/overlooked.html )
>
> SIP Manufactured Housing (or something like MH) seems to be the way of
> the future. Concept 2000 is a prototype
> http://buildingamerica.pnl.gov/SIPShouse.htm .
>
> In a way it thinking, it's a pity. Framing with wood studs and nails
> will become a lost art that perhaps only some old guys will know. It'll
> be like blacksmithing.
>
> But for my part, I'll be glad to see the studs disappear into scrap pile
> of history.
Not only all this, but you just don't get that really nifty burning-wood
smell when you plow thru aluminum stud with a circular saw. You know,
that burning-wood smell that tells you that you're alive and well on
your chunk of God's little green.
And really, some days that's all you've got when some super's riding
your ass all goddamn day.
AJS
In article <[email protected]>,
handyman@c______.com wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:47:36 -0600, "Nehmo Sergheyev"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I never liked site-built stick framing for houses.
> >
> >Building on-site is inefficient. Although a house is a physically large
> >product, it's still easier to move the product through the manufacturing
> >process than it is to move the manufacturing process to the site.
>
> Hmmmmm,
> That would mean bringing my toolbox, a few power tools, my ladders and
> sawhorses, and possibly a generator to the site. Heck, I do that just
> to fix a leaky roof (minus the generator).
>
> >Manufacturing the entire home, or at least large sections of it, on an
> >assembly line is cheaper, safer, and yields a better quality product.
>
> Cheaper? NO.....
> Bringing in a huge trailer, wide load permits, police escort, huge
> crane to lift the thing in place, repair of moving cracks and damages,
> etc.......
>
> Safer? I know a guy who works at one of these places. These guys are
> always getting injured and shot with nail guns (I'd rather hit my
> thumb with my hammer).
>
> Better quality? NO WAY. Cheap construction, one step above a trailer
> house, often problems with leaks, and electrical wiring where the
> sections meet. Sections do not always line up perfectly or level.
>
>
> >Stick framing, that is, wood framing using studs and plates to form
> >walls, is too labor intensive and intricate. For residential
>
> Too labor intensive? Hmmmmmm, thats funny. I have been building this
> way all my life, without machinery, and often without help. Except
> for power saw and drill, I still use a hammer and nails. It's one
> heck of a lot easier to carry pieces board by board, and look at all
> the fuel and energy I save. It's only too labor intensive if you dont
> know what you are doing.
>
> >construction, Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) systems appear to be the
> >most competitive alternative - at least for exterior walls. And for
> >interior partitions, light-gauge steel-stud & -plate systems aren't such
> >a bad alternative.
>
> >Here's an article that discusses the inadequacies of stick framing:
> >(When evaluating US System author Eric Hunting comments, you should take
> >into account that he is commercially advocating his own alternative,
> >which uses aluminum structural members and SIPs. Nonetheless, his
> >arguments against wood stud framing are persuasive.)
> >http://www.ussystem-exhibit.com/architectureproject/overlooked.html )
>
> Yep, some advertiser making false claims to benefit his own sales !!!!
>
> >SIP Manufactured Housing (or something like MH) seems to be the way of
> >the future. Concept 2000 is a prototype
> >http://buildingamerica.pnl.gov/SIPShouse.htm .
>
> The "future" will offer lots of inferior "throw away" structures.
> Most current homes are only eapected to last 25 to 50 years. Yet,
> many old homes (that were stick built) continue to stand after a
> century or more.
>
> >In a way it thinking, it's a pity. Framing with wood studs and nails
> >will become a lost art that perhaps only some old guys will know. It'll
> >be like blacksmithing.
> >
>
> It will only be a lost art for those who are persuaded by marketing
> companies into buying an inferior product with a high price tag.
>
> >But for my part, I'll be glad to see the studs disappear into scrap pile
> >of history.
>
>
> And you work for which prefab housing corporation? How much are you
> being paid to advertise in this manner, or are you just a spammer?
>
Matthew S. Whiting said:
>We have basements around here also and, if properly built, the sheathing
>doesn't contact the concrete. See the link I just posted for JS to look
>at to learn how to do it right.
I agree, but they sometimes overlap the siding over the foundation, I
suppose, to make it look 'trimed'. Who knows...
Read my first post. <g>
Greg G.
- Mach Twain -
> What kind of sill anchors do the pre-fabs use?
- Nehmo -
I don't know. But Mobile Homes (or Manufactured Housing) are built on a
steel ladder-like frame. The main rails of the frame, running the length
of the house, are about 3' in from the long exterior walls. Outriggers
go perpendicular from the rails to under the exterior walls. I assume
the bottom plate of an exterior wall is screwed into the outrigger.
MHs also have hold down straps that go from an anchor point (that is
secured into the ground) up under the siding, over the top plates, down
the other side, and then attached to another anchor. The rails of frame
are also attached to these anchor points.
--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************
You framers better get some time in with light gauge metal.
Don't get caught wondering where all the work went . . .
when that time comes . . . and it will. Wood may be a
"renewable resource," if and when someone replants trees for
something other than paper mill pulp and chips, but its cost
effectiveness (forgetting other beneficial comparisons)
versus steel is rapidly vanishing. The biggest thing
standing in the way of steel is skilled framers are in
commercial work or nonexistant and builders and codes are
wary of change, as usual.
Jim
>The biggest thing
>standing in the way of steel is skilled framers are in
>commercial work or nonexistant and builders and codes are
>wary of change, as usual.
Steel is the stud of choice in Centex (Fla) where my wife builds houses. The
only wood framing is in the load bearing walls of 2 story segments. There is a
2 story, all steel home going up down the road from me where there isn't a
stick of wood in sight. They even have steel roof trusses. Wood studs are
rapidly becoming a rare thing on job sites here. The builders say the steel is
a lot more dimensionally stable and straighter than wood.