On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:19:42 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
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.
We see far, far more of it in masonry houses with fully skilled people.
That wouldn't be difficult - far more are built.
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.......
Ever seen a SIP? Of couse you haven't.
Of course I have. They are only foam and OSB, nothing magic.
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 failed 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.
None have come to the surface.
Evidence?
Secondly, the point was about the
technology as a whole - i.e. the
product and the installation.
Two mutually exclusive points. The product with its technology and the
installation (workmanship).
They are not, because both aspects have to work to produce the final
result.
For a successful outcome, all elements
have to be in place and work correctly.
Same with any construction method.
Exactly. Nobody claims that for traditional masonry or timber
construction that unskilled labour can be used.
With this, the manufacturers, (and you through blind cut and paste)
are asserting that skill isn't required. This simply isn't true.
Clearly it is possible to have a
bad outcome if there are installation
problems.
That has nothing to do with the product and the technology behind it.
It does if the installation is not as straightforward as the makers
claim.
- it is not all plain sailing.
It is. A weatherproof shell can be up within a few days.
It is possible for an installation
problem to result in a rotting
structure.
Same with any construction method. The Alaska failures were blantant
negligence.
It doesn't matter. The manufacturers are claiming that unskilled
labour can be used and that the construction goes together easily.
It doesn't, because it is possible to make errors.
If it were such that it *can't* be put together wrongly, then the
unskilled labour claim would have some substance.
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?
Yep.
That explains it all.
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.
The point is the product, which seem to think is faulty by design. The
product is sound, very sound.
It's only as sound as the end result.
A piece of cardboard is sound in and of itself. Is it suitable for
house construction? In this climate, no.
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.
You never, because you know little, if anything about SIPs. You make things
up.
There's nothing to make up. I simply quoted an industry association
article to illustrate that this is not a technology without problems.
The "making up" is your blind belief that everything in the garden is
rosy.
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.
Where have you read that? Stop making things up.
Have another look at the manufacturer web sites where you sourced your
information in the first instance.
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.
I am not and I don't make things up.
Look. Either they are idiot proof or they are not.
I've demonstrated that they are not.
Either you need skilled and trained people or you don't .
Trained with low skills. Simple.
The measure being?
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.
Not many at all.
... and you would know?
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.
Not so. Training is required of course, built no 5 year apprenticeships. If
you knew how SIPs worked and were joined you would not say silly thing like
that.
It isn't difficult to put panels together. However, clearly it is
possible to do so incorrectly.
You can't have it both ways.
You can. SIPs are near enough a panacea.
They may be for you.
Not for me for everyone.
I see. So according to you, people are going to flock after these
ticky-tacky houses and the prices will rocket?
In your dreams.
It seems to me that there can
be all sorts of problems with quite
horrendous outcomes.
Tell me of all these horrendous problems? Please don't keep giving e.g's of
shoddy workmanship.
That is the precise point. Poor workmanship can have horrendous
outcomes. I would call the need to replace a roof a pretty horrendous
outcome.
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.
That do just that. As do all independent test too. An the UK has a number of
SIP companies manufacturing the panels, which was not the case 3 years ago.
It doesn't alter the fact that installation is not as unskilled as
they would like to imply.
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.
Does pride mean some baked clay (bricks), light blocks and the rest
Paramount boards? My oh my. The end result of SIPs is a house more solid
and robust than bricks.
For how long? We have a good idea of how long houses made from
traditional materials and methods will last.
The SIP houses in Kobe all survived the earthquakes
with superficial damage while those around all fell down.
We don't live in an earthquake zone. Obviously one uses flexible
materials where there is a risk of earthquake.
You obviously
know nothing of construction. That is sad.
You obviously know nothing of the applicability of materials and
construction to the location.
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|