On 2007-07-18 22:45:57 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:

You really are so far up your own arse that you don't even realise
when you cross from answering the question asked and bragging about
how much you have or would spend, the OP never asked for other
options, he asked if "put a few inches of tarmac" on top of his
present concrete was a good idea - a yes or no answer, he never asked
about ripping it all up and having it replaced by "replaced with
handmade clay pavers" (not even machine made but *hand made* pavers).
If the OP had the option of spending that sort of money do you really
think he would be bothering about having a few inches of tarmac, sort
of leaving the old drive way as is, it's just about the cheapest
option available.

Andy, you are nothing but a (1980's style [1]) snob, you might well
have money but it's very obvious that you so lack real class...

[1] so ably **** taken by Harry Enfield and his "loads 'a muuuuney"
sketches...


Have you actually provided a constructive answer here? No.

Have I seen somebody with a concrete drive past its sell by date who
had it topped with tarmac only to see it failing in under two years?
Yes.

Have I had a drive with a concrete base and a failing tarmac top and
researched what was involved in various ways of remedying it? Yes

Have I considered expected lifetime, the costs and risks/rewards of
different approaches? Certainly.

Let's conisder the question. On the face of it, it could be a simple
yes or no answer. However:

- do you know what the concrete is like?

- do you know the recommended thickness and grade of tarmac that should
be used and how it should be applied?

- do you know the area involved?

- do you know how long it is required to last?



The reality is that you don't know the answers to any of those
questions any more than I do, yet they are the chief factors involved
since they will determine the practicality and the cost.

Yet against this background, you seem to be unwilling yourself to give
a straight yes or no answer either but would prefer to criticise a
reasoned reply and enter into unjustified abuse. Of course that may
also be because you aren't able to think laterally.

In reality, and in providing a fairly complete answer, there are a lot
of factors that should be taken into account as mentioned above, and it
would be as wrong to say go ahead without qualification as it would to
say do nothing or to tear it up and start again.

My point was very clearly

1) that there is a risk in just laying tarmac on top of a possibly
failing concrete base. If that is done and it proves unsatisfactory
in an unacceptably short time, then the exercise is a huge waste of
money because there is the cost of the original tarmac and then the
cost of removing it plus the concrete later if and when it fails.

2) Once that is taken into account, it makes a substantial contribution
towards the cost of starting again

3) The labour costs form a substantial proportion of the total cost of
a new drive, whichever materials are used. One can hire a bunch of
cowboys and get a crappy job or research further and find a good
contractor with verifiable references. The same goes for materials.

4) There are some basic things that one can and can't do. For
example, drainage issues, slopes to drains, loadings, thicknesses of
materials and so forth. If these are wrong, be it a new job or a
refurbishment, the outcome can be an expensive disaster.

In the project that I put together, I spent a great deal of time and
trouble in checking all of these issues - options for surfaces and
materials, construction requirements and contractors. I used
various sources of information including web sites such as Paving
Expert (which does have a lot of useful detail) plus several others,
books, articles, manufacturers and so on. A lot of cross checking.
There were differences in recommended techniques. I had samples of
probably 20 different types and varieties of surface material at
different price points and interviewed 6 or 7 contractors.

This was going to be a relatively expensive project anyway, simply
because of the area involved, plus various other issues such as
accesses etc. Given that, I think that it's perfectly reasonable
to research the whole thing properly and to take time over doing so
before committing; That has to do with doing the job properly as well
as the cost. I'm not a believer in bodging things and then having to
redo them.

The criteria that I had were longevity, suitability, fitting correctly
with the surroundings and achieving that for the minimum cost. In
terms of that, I wanted to achieve a result in terms of appearance that
would not change with time in a negative way.

The material selected was neither the cheapest, nor the most expensive.
Out of the original 20 ideas and samples, there was a shorter
selection list of 10 from across the entire price range. Some
concrete products were left in the final 8, plus some machine made
bricks and some handmade. One of the handmades was eliminated for
mechanical reasons (not thick enough) and two on high price. One of
the machine mades was more expensive than one of the handmades, IIRC.
Several concrete products were eliminated when I asked to see them in
drives that had been there a few years. The colours fade in some of
them leaving a disappointing appearance. The eventual choice was
actually 4th in terms of price and there was quite some way to the most
expensive.

The end result is entirely as good as expected and came in at less than
the estimated cost,

As a matter of interest, I did look at the option of replacing the
tarmac. It would have required remedial work to the concrete or
replacing it entirely. For the work involved, the cost was starting
to approach that for implementing concrete blocks.

Obviously different people will have different criteria in terms of
appearance, cost and longevity. There were certainly less expensive
options than the ones I selected and there were some that were more
expensive. The range of total implementation cost across the
options were much more compressed than I had expected, which made it
possible to entertain a greater range of possibilities as well.

In particular, the implementation cost difference (i.e. labour and
materials) between hand and machine made bricks was small for the
project size, and the end result the appearance that was wanted.

It was for all of those reasons that I made the point that it's
important to look at many options if one wants a good outcome without
the risk of throwing good money after bad,.


If I am going to undertake a project, then I will research it properly
and do it properly or I don't do it at all. It is factually
incorrect for you to sugges that achieving lowest cost is not a factor
in what I decide to do - in fact it's one of the most important,
especially when there is the possibility of incrementalism resulting in
something much more expensive than originally intended. At that point
it's time to go around again and look at where savings can be made
without compromising the outcome unacceptably.

I certainly don't follow the "any old thing will do" or "what's the
cheapest I can get away with?" mentality. Some people have
difficulty in separating the difference between cost and value - I've
always seen that as a clear distinction.

I find that the outcome and the means to achieve it are both important.

I don't and don't need to make any apology or justification for that
approach. If you have a problem with or a lack of understanding of
that concept then it's really your problem and not mine......