On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:29:42 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:07:38 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:48:03 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 9/7/2016 2:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:20:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:19:50 PM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
On 9/6/16 2:33 AM, wrote:
My husband and I have carpeted stairs made of paticle board. I'd like to ditch the carpet, scrape out the staples, fill those particle boards and paint the stairs.

I have read everyone's ideas for filling and smoothing a surface. This surface will need to be durable enough to withstand continual foot scraping and weight changes as we run up and down stairs. And the treated surfaces must be sandable.

Which filler would you gentlemen recommend? Any recommended type of paint for such stairs?


I would fill them with these. :-)

http://www.lowes.com/pd/RetroTread-11-5-in-x-42-in-Raw-Unfinished-Red-Oak-Stair-Tread/3191553


Aren't those going to throw off the rise of the top step? Assuming the steps
are all evenly spaced now, isn't the rise from the top step onto the
landing/hallway going to be .625" less than rise of the rest of the steps?

A minor problem going up, but it could be a safety issue coming down.

As my grandfather used to say when explaining the proper way to build steps:
"The feet remember."
The steps are already non-standard because the carpet has been
removed. Carpet and underpadding is very close to the thickness of the
"treads"

Maybe I missed it, but where does it say that the carpet has been removed?

My husband and I have carpeted stairs made of paticle board. I'd like to
ditch the carpet,

Sounds to me like a future plan, not a completed task.

They *have* something that they'd *like to* change.

Unless Clare has had other communications with the OP, I'm curious how
he can claim:

"The steps are already non-standard because the carpet has been removed."
OK - to be 100% accurate for all you use-net nazis -

The bare partical board steps will already be non-standard because the
originall design included the thickness of the carpet in the
calculations IF it was initially code compliant.

the applicable code:

R311.7.4.1 Riser height. The maximum riser height shall be 73/4 inches
(196 mm). The riser shall be measured vertically between leading edges
of the adjacent treads. The greatest riser height within any flight of
stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm).

The top step could have been 3/8" taller than the bottom step and
still have been within code - and adding 3/4 inch stair tread caps
(much thicker than we have been talking about) woud STILL be within
code, with the bottom step now being 3/8" higher than the top one.

IF, by the very odd chance, the steps were perfectly spaceda 3/8"
tread cap would still be within code.

I still think someone is being extremely pedantic.

And I still think you were incorrect when you said the carpet was removed.