On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:40:40 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:27:46 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
It doesn't matter whether the problem
was in the material, training for the installers,
lack of inspection or anything else.
Taken in total, the technology and its
implementation can and did fail
The technology never failed. Workmanship
did. You obviously can't tell the difference.
The technology *includes* the implementation.
It doesn't
Clearly it does.
Do you imagine that these products self erect?
Otherwise one could dream up all kinds of complicated materials that
require a lot of skill to use them, and when they fail say that it was
the workmanship.
If it is done right it is done right whether very high skill or very low
skill. Get it?
That simply doesn't correlate.
Either something is easy and can be done correctly by unskilled people
or it can't. For a design to be foolproof, it shouldn't be possible
to put it together incorrectly. Clearly in this case it is possible
because people have done it.
That doesn't make the material bad, per sec, just the claim that it
doesn't require some skill.
For a technology to be successful,
it does have to be easily
implemented or the outcome will be a failure.
Then none is successful then.
I didn't say that either. I simply pointed out that implementation
is part of a successful technology.
I haven't said that SIPs can't be useful
or successful, nor have I
disputed their popularity.
You are attempting to rubbish the system and not doing a good a job.
I am not rubbishing anything. I am simply pointing out that it is
subject to problems if not used or inspected properly.
You, on the other hand, are attempting to paint a rosy picture of
something without any problems. I know that you have difficulty in
seeing things other than in black and white, so can understand that
you would have difficulty with the concept that things *can* have
problems.
However, demonstrably, poor execution
can lead to a poor outcome, so
they are not the panacea that you claim.
They are. they will be common in the UK very soon as many developers gear
up for them.
Really? I travel around a lot, and have yet to see more than one
development and a couple of self build places using this.
I saw a number of homes in Milton Keynes built of SIPs go up
in days.
Yet another reason not to live in Milton Keynes.
Once the shell was up the tiles were put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation for the building boom.
The question will then be whether people will buy these ticky-tacky
houses or prefer traditional masonry.
As regards to structural integrity, huge chucks can be cut out of them. It
is common to cut out your own doors and windows using a large jig saw.
I am sure that this needs to be properly planned out to ensure that
sufficient support for the roof remains in place.
If there is then damage to the structure as the result of damp or
vermin attack, this would be a question mark.
Some level of ability and
supervision is still required.
As with all construction. Many companies have assessed that they can have
more men checking a SIP house to ensure quality as they go up so quick. The
amount of men that can say put up x houses in 6 months is still far less
with SIPs even with more checkers.
Thrown together in other words. Not very impressive for the single
largest investment that most people will make.
and so does have potential disadvantages.
What might they be?
I think we've covered that.
You haven't as you don't know any.
We've covered that.....
You would be better off not reading
manufacturer web sites and
accepting all that they say unquestioningly.
I don't. I have visited a few of the SIP
homes in the UK. A number are
going up in Portsmouth right now.
Inevitably, there will be another side to the story - there always is.
The right one, the objective one. You
lack objectivity and go for tabloid
headlines, like the SIP failures in Alaska
headline. Sucked in hook line and sinker.
I think that really is the
pot calling the kettle black.
You sucked it in, hook line and sinker.
I simply looked for information. It was in the form of a paper from
an industry association and not hard to find.
You are the one who has tried to
portray this technology as perfect.
Perfect? Superior, faster and cheaper, yes. Perfection is nearer the 100%
with SIPs as walls are 100% true and most of the hard work is done in a
factory under controlled conditions.
Prefabs in other words.
We are only talking about OSB and foam here.
I don't think that the results are superior to masonry or traditional
timber construction at all - just faster and perhaps cheaper.
Whether that remains the case over the lifetime of the house is
another matter
No doubt it is possible to use
the technology successfully, but it is
not perfect and is subject to problems
in certain circumstances.
Shoddiness apart, what are these circumstances?
Already discussed.
Those are the objective facts.
You don't know anything about SIPs, so how would you know the facts? Oh
read tabloid blurb of shock , horror because of poor workmanship.
The article that I posted was from the industry association.
It wasn't a tabloid (I know you have difficulty with knowing the
difference) and pointed out that there can be problems resulting from
poor installation.
In this case the implications were quite serious.
It may be that the failure rate in
properties is 1% or even 0.1%,
but that still represents a failure,
Only in workmanship, which mutually exclusive to the product.
Obviously. All that I have said is that the product and the
installation have to be taken into account in terms of the outcome.
and the consumer should not be
so naive as to believe your claims that
the technology is simple to use when
clearly problems can happen.
It is simple to use, very simple. Follow the makers instructions that's all.
If you don't you have problems, as with any product you assemble.
Fine. Clearly this wasn't done, and the results when unskilled
labour was used were poor and the cost of rectification high.
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|