On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:16:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:03:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
It does, however, illustrate
that there can be installation
problems,
That is the case with any construction method.
Of course. However, this one is marketed as being simple to do and
idiotproof. It isn't,
It. Follow the simple instruction. One selling point of SIPs is that
unskilled men can be easily trained up in them. No expensive hard to get
tradesmen.
Really? We just saw an example of what can go badly wrong when
people who are supposed to either have been skilled or trained (it
doesn't matter which) use the technology.
That is all it is - a selling point. The reality differs.
and when things do go wrong, they are
expensive to fix.
Depends on what went wrong. Replacing one wall panel is easy. Some can be
patched up with OSB and foam injected.
Great for structural integrity.......
This is not necessarily a reason
not to use the technology, but the
suppliers should at least be honest
in their claims
They are honest. Not one has faled yet. Only failures are due to shoddy
workmanship.
First of all, how would you know whether or not there have been any
product defects? For there to have been none is implausible.
Secondly, the point was about the technology as a whole - i.e. the
product and the installation. For a successful outcome, all elements
have to be in place and work correctly.
Clearly it is possible to have a bad outcome if there are installation
problems.
- it is not all plain sailing.
It is. A waetherproof shell can be up within a few days.
It is possible for an installation problem to result in a rotting
structure.
This is not plain sailing.
The first SIP panelled homes were in the 1950s and are still there today. I
can't say that about many of the masonry homes in the UK that never lasted
15 years.
Really? I can drive around and see several hundred in an hour
without any obvious problems.
and I already mentioned the
potential for infestations.
Which is not a point in the UK, and
will no longer be a point in the US.
Rodents and insects are present here.
Different types and far less of them. The same problems exist for SIPs as
for timber frames.
Oh I see. Does the American accent of U.S. rodents make them more
voracious?
Neither is intended to say that
this technology may not have some use,
but it is certainly not without its share of issues.
What isues are those?
Already covered.
You never covered any. You only highlighted shoddy workmanship.
Yes, and this is all part of the end result. Materials and
installation have to be taken into account.
When compiling a list of advantage and
disadvantages the disadvantages are
few and far between.
There are certainly some,
and when they arise, the implications are
substantial.
Name me the disadvantages?
Already covered at length.
Removing entire roofs and walls is not everybody's
idea of fun.
Shoddy workmanship. A recent TV consumer programme highlighted a whole
complex of brick built homes that required the roofs be re-roofed. Why?
Shoddy workmanship.
Fine. So it is incorrect that SIPs should be sold on the basis of
being idiotproof. They are subject to a bad outcome just like
anything else in the event of installation problems.
In terms of the end result and the implications of putting it right,
it doesn't matter whether it is the material or the way it is
installed. However, it is clearly not as idiot proof as the
manufacturers would like to claim.
It is idiot proof if you follow the instructions.
If something were as idiot proof
as the manufacturers claim, it would
not be a problem.
No highly skilled men are needed to erect them. The makers have never said
"idiot proof". Just less skilled men working on them.
You're contradicting yourself.
Either you need skilled and trained people or you don't .
Unless used as part of a factory
prefabricated construction, mistakes
can be made.
Human nature can't be taken into account. As yet few panels failed even to
shoddy workmanship. Only 90 in Alaska.
That was from a cursory glance. Undoubtedly there are plenty more
examples.
It is not a major problem as few have failed to shoddiness to the installed
base.
However, they should not then market
their product and technology as
idiot proof
They don't. They say unskiled men can be trained up quickly in SIPs,
nothing else. Read the book I posted.
Clearly problems can still happen, so the assertion that unskilled
people can be quickly trained is somewhat exaggerated.
You can't have it both ways.
You can. SIPs are near enough a panacea.
They may be for you.
It seems to me that there can be all sorts of problems with quite
horrendous outcomes.
Follow the instructions and hey
presto a weather proof shell in a few days so internal work can go on in the
winter and superinsulation and soundproofing as standard for the resident.
Brilliant.
All the manufacturer web sites seem to agree with you as well.
In the US finishing trades love them as they have a small heater
in the place in the winter and they work in comfort. Houses are completed
in quicko time. Selbuilders love em too for the same reasons.
I think that if I were selfbuilding a house, I would want to take more
pride in it than implementing a strandboard and foam prefab.
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl