On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:10:46 -0000, "Roger Mills"
wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:23:04 -0000, "Roger Mills"
wrote:

It is for this very reason that all the windows in my house are thermal
break aluminium - and I believe that they are well worth the extra cost.

Was it much extra, out of interest ? I have two west-facing upstairs
windows which do not have much life left in them and being above a
conservatory, access for painting and cleaning is limited. Mind you, I
would rather struggle by than consider uPVC.

A fair bit I think (maybe 50%?) but I don't have any accurate figures. It is
quite some years since we had the whole house done - and I remember at the
time that uPVC would have been cheaper, but we didn't get any proper quotes
for these because there was no way we would have had uPVC.

The differential may now be even higher in the light of the latest building
regs. Because the frames (even with thermal break) transmit more heat than
uPVC, you end up having to have more exotic glass in order the achieve the
required thermal efficiency.

Thanks for the info. I may well stick with wood, assuming such an inferior
and non-environmentally friendly material is still permitted. (That's a
joke, by the way.)

--
Press any key to continue or any other key to quit.

Mail john rather than nospam...