According to RicodJour :
"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

And you took that to _literally_ mean that there's more than one
code?

Geeze.

Any contractor worth anything will be familiar with the concept, and
perhaps even with those words.

For example, many custom home builders prefer to exceed code on certain
things. Eg: go up a joist size or down a notch in joist spacing, because
some people find the springiness of "minimal code compliance" floors to
be objectionable and sometimes cracks ceramic floors. But it won't fall
down...

Some years ago, I remember reading a letter to the editor in FHB from
a contractor referring to the "plus two steps club" (or something like
that), of contractors who prefer to go up one or two increments from
code.

Code is _minimum_ acceptable to keep things from falling down. Sometimes
you prefer more. Sometimes you need more.

If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost. In other words,
negotiate on how far you want to go.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.

Yeah, on how to spend $500K to turn a $100K house into a $200K one.
On bathrooms that cost more to build than most people earn in their
lifetime. On materials that are ridiculously expensive, highly
impractical, or simply aren't obtainable where you live.

Heck, I _like_ Norm. But TOH has become so far out of "normal
experience", it's ridiculous.

Most of Holmes' shows are about where the previous contractors _don't_
meet code, or where they did, it didn't do the job. In _both_ cases the
work he does usually exceeds code - in the latter, code didn't work, so
he has to, don't he? In the former, it failed, and to-code might still
not work, and it gives an opportunity to expound on the elements of
doing it right.

Indeed, given many of the things he does, the "normal" thing would be to
bandaid - with a bandaid that doesn't necessarily work. Many episodes
show where builders/contractors have repeatedly come back and tried
cheap fixes, because the "right" one was too expensive. That didn't
work. In circumstances like that, doing it "minimally right" (eg:
excavating around the foundation, coating the foundation and replacing
the weeping tile) and doing it "possibly overkill, but _guaranteed_ to
work" (eg: same as "minimally", but add fancy drainage membranes) has so
little cost difference, you might as well do the overkill, and sleep
better at night.

If you've seen more recent episodes, you'll have seen more places where they
clearly say "this is way more than necessary". Perhaps one of the best
examples is where the plumber installed a plastic water supply system
with a single large manifold, and a valve + homerun for _each_ fixture.
It's explained that it's overkill. It's also explained why it works
better than "minimum acceptable". Someone watching it will wonder
"should I do that in X?", and ask the plumber. _That_ negotiation leads
to the homeowner being able to better understand and compromise on
quality versus cost.

I've built/done a lot of stuff around the house for decades. Decks,
sheds, plumbing, electrical, trim, insulation, walls etc. I was
pretty good at it (for an amateur ;-) even before I started watching
HOH. But I've learned a _lot_ on doing things right (or at least better)
on a couple of episodes of HOH. TOH is more of a "how _not_ to renovate".
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to RicodJour :

There was an episode on where a homeowner bought a home where the
previous owner had done a ton of work without permits. Years later the
municipality is going after the current owner. Holmes was all ****ed
off at the previous homeowner instead of the real estate lawyers
involved, the title company, the realtors, the current owner for not
doing their homework, etc.

On the contrary, in that episode, Holmes pointed out that the buyer's
lawyer _knew_ of the problems and outstanding municipal work orders,
and failed to inform the buyer.

Can you say breach of trust?

The buyer's lawyer lost the resulting lawsuit.

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...


And you took that to _literally_ mean that there's more than one
code?


Sounds like it to me. Medium Code? Maximum Code? What else would a layman
interpret that to be?


Any contractor worth anything will be familiar with the concept, and
perhaps even with those words.

I've never hear the term used. Have you? Often?



Code is _minimum_ acceptable to keep things from falling down. Sometimes
you prefer more. Sometimes you need more.

Exactly. And there is only one Code that states what that minimum is.



If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost. In other words,
negotiate on how far you want to go.

Sure, while he tries to keep a straight face he'll open his wallet and allow
you to fill it up. I worked with my step-father, a contractor and
architect, for many years and he never used the term "medium code". Nor
have any of the building inspectors or subcontractors. Maybe this is
something new?

According to :

Mike Holmes is an actor, not a contractor.

Interesting - running his own contracting firm and apprenticing
in various trades didn't make him a contractor, it made him an
actor.

That's, er, an odd claim to make.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In article , Chris Lewis wrote:
According to :

Mike Holmes is an actor, not a contractor.

Interesting - running his own contracting firm and apprenticing
in various trades didn't make him a contractor, it made him an
actor.

That's, er, an odd claim to make.

If Mike is an actor, then I'm a nobel prize winning turkey farmer!

"Don" wrote in
:

"RicodJour" wrote
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some
sort of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction,
yet makes plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology
(hallmark of someone who read a book without understanding it) and
makes comments that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different
codes is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this
stuff is inexcusable.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and
home improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.

Sometimes, but even that is slipping it seems.
Caught a few mins of TOH late last night with that new guy and I had
to turn the channel.
It was embarrassing and this comes from a person that has watched that
show since the beginning.
Yes, he was a dick, but I'll take Vila over the noobs 8 days out of 7.

Ya know, with all the inherent *problems* that occur in construction,
and even more so with remodeling, it takes a special kind of idiot to
do a TV show about such things. Frankly, most people (homeowners)
don't want to know about such things and would be completely mortified
to know the real story behing their own remodeling projects. I
couldn't imagine putting myself in the position of explaining
unforeseeable negative circumstances on TV in front of gazillions of
people. Those that can, do. And those that can't, well if there are no
teaching positions available, they start a new TV show.



Well, I wouldn't mind doing a show, but OTOH, it's always been my
tendency to try to find out who knows what, and then tap into the
knowledge of whomever knows the most. A lot of poeple seem to have no
idea about the concept of "finding, evaluating, and using experts"...

According to Edwin Pawlowski :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

And you took that to _literally_ mean that there's more than one
code?

Sounds like it to me. Medium Code? Maximum Code? What else would a layman
interpret that to be?

If the layman was actually _listening_ to what Holmes was saying,
they'd know that it is _not_ what was being meant.

This reminds me of the periodic flamewars we have here about the
term "neutral".

Casual DIYers who know how to change an outlet know what it means.
Electricians know what it means.

It's the code-lawyers in the middle who yowl that the white wire
in a house is _not_ a neutral, it's a "grounded conductor".

Well, yeah, true. But find a residential electrician that
actually _uses_ that term in practise.

Shows to go you that a little information can be dangerous.

And if you want to criticize, it's easy to find something to
get picky over.

Any contractor worth anything will be familiar with the concept, and
perhaps even with those words.

I've never hear the term used. Have you? Often?

Occasionally. It trips off the tongue more easily than "up a line
in the span tables".

More often I hear "above [or better than] code".

Surely you've heard _that_ from your step father.

Code is _minimum_ acceptable to keep things from falling down. Sometimes
you prefer more. Sometimes you need more.

Exactly. And there is only one Code that states what that minimum is.

Actually there's several. I won't even mention that ours (the same
one that Holmes is required to follow, modulo minor municipal
differences between Ottawa and Toronto - eg: the snow load
calculations are different) is different than yours ;-)

If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost. In other words,
negotiate on how far you want to go.

Sure, while he tries to keep a straight face he'll open his wallet and allow
you to fill it up.

Then (a) you shouldn't be consulting a contractor, because you don't
know enough to protect yourself and (b) you should be avoiding that
contractor. A contractor like that doesn't need "medium code" jargon
to take advantage of you.

Throw in a clanger like asking for #1 structural DougFir 4x12s 12"
OC for a 8 foot span, and see if he cracks up or not ;-)

I worked with my step-father, a contractor and
architect, for many years and he never used the term "medium code". Nor
have any of the building inspectors or subcontractors. Maybe this is
something new?

As I said, there are tradesmen that prefer to work that way. ISTR
a newsletter going around about it. Many custom builders work that
way. "Medium code" expresses the idea in terms that the layman can
understand - especially since Holmes does take pains to explain
what it means.

[In actual fact, as far as I can tell, he usually uses the phrase
"better than code". ISTR Medium/Maximum as being hyperbole from
one particularly spectacular example of stupid previous contractor.]
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On 09 Nov 2006, Chris Lewis wrote

According to :

Mike Holmes is an actor, not a contractor.

Interesting - running his own contracting firm and apprenticing
in various trades didn't make him a contractor, it made him an
actor.

That's, er, an odd claim to make.

It would be if that's what bambam said -- but it wasn't.

He didn't say that Holmes was never a contractor, or never trained as
one; he said that Holmes *is* an actor -- that is, in his present
job/incarncation/what-he's-doing/presentation.

(FWIW, I don't have a dog in this race -- AFAIK we don't get the
programme here in the UK -- but having read the thread, that looked
like an unfair hit....)

--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian

For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Don wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Warm Worm wrote:

"RicodJour"


You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker
knows enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be
some sort of super contractor with extensive knowledge of
construction, yet makes plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses
terminology (hallmark of someone who read a book without
understanding it) and makes comments that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to
the medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one
code. It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing
different codes is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert
spouting this stuff is inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how
over-engineering a house would affect a house's design, cost or
resale value. I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed
that, at the end of it, when the owners would come back and see the
change, there'd be the same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing"
background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.


Explain that term *needs to be*.

The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of
a given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need
to bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering
is making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond
that is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability
are considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the
picture, right?

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.


I keep thinking of the program I saw on the Discovery Channel about
tornadoes - they showed one neighborhood (no basements of course) where
every house had been flattened and the population was decimated - except
for one guy and his family; he'd had a reinforced shelter installed in
the center of the house, and that shelter was the only thing left
standing, and he and his family were the only people left without some
sort of injury.

So, if something is "overengineered", but is left unscathed, or at least
with only minimal damage, when that supposedly 100-year storm hits, is
it actually over-engineered, or is it correctly engineered?

It seems to me that the "minimum code" is just that. Minimum.
Unfortunately, nature doesn't pay much attention to statistics, and
storms are tending to get stronger, not weaker. So personally, I'd
prefer to pay more for something that is "over-engineered", and did pay
extra for things like Tech-Shield and Tyvek.

Most people - well, most people just hink about what's cheap today, not
about what will cost less over a few years or even what will be safer if
a severe storm hits.

What it all comes down to is how much someone wants to pay up-front
versus what they might save over the long term. Most poeple can't see
past next week, when it comes to money. So, most houses (since most are
development houses) are intended to give people "what they want".

Every year, without fail, we see news reports about "sufficiently
engineered" homes destroyed by natural events that are *known* to have
occured in their given areas, hence are a known risk. On average, those
non-average conditions are called "statistically insignificant", and
engineers are called upon to do their calcualtions and plans accordingly
- they're given a certain set of parameters and a certain budget, and
told to stay within those, regardless of whether or not they might think
it unwise to stay only withing the minimum/code. So, IMO, much of what
gets called "overengineering" is actually "engineered to withstand a
wider range of conditions than those which occur on average".

"Don" wrote in
:

"EXT" wrote
I have observed over a number of years that the building code, while
it is to set structurally good minimum standards, is often a
compromise between the standards committee and large mass builders.
If you want to beef up an area of the code for whatever reason, the
builders will demand a reduction is another area to keep costs down.
I have seen areas in our local code where the standards have been
reduced to cut costs.

Thats not the case in SW FL where the costs of code compliance are
continuously rising, in some cases dramatically.
Probably the most expensive one in recent years was the requirement
for *200mph* windows, or shutters on all exterior openings.

THis is off onto a tangent, but, can shutters or some other sort of
hurricane shield be installed onto a brick exterior? I saw saomething
in Lowes that uses permanent bolts put into the brick as anchors for a
new sort of "fabric", or at least, pliable material. No pricing psoted
of course. But I don;t know how actual "shutters" could be installed
over/in brick...


No builder, regardless of size, can escape that requirement.
The cheap builders (tract homes) opt for the removeable shutters but
many of their homeowners are lazy and install the shutters at the
beginning of hurricane season and leave them on for the next 5 months.
This has caused issues with the fire depts and is dangerous as they
block *code required* egress windows on sleeping rooms.

I thought those things were motorized, or at least, functioned sort-of
like roll-up blinds... Wouldn't leaving them closed keep all the light
out of a house shudder...?

Kris Krieger wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Don wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote


Warm Worm wrote:


"RicodJour"



You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker
knows enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be
some sort of super contractor with extensive knowledge of
construction, yet makes plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses
terminology (hallmark of someone who read a book without
understanding it) and makes comments that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to
the medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one
code. It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing
different codes is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert
spouting this stuff is inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how
over-engineering a house would affect a house's design, cost or
resale value. I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed
that, at the end of it, when the owners would come back and see the
change, there'd be the same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing"
background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.


Explain that term *needs to be*.

The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of
a given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need
to bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering
is making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond
that is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability
are considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the
picture, right?

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.



I keep thinking of the program I saw on the Discovery Channel about
tornadoes - they showed one neighborhood (no basements of course) where
every house had been flattened and the population was decimated - except
for one guy and his family; he'd had a reinforced shelter installed in
the center of the house, and that shelter was the only thing left
standing, and he and his family were the only people left without some
sort of injury.

So, if something is "overengineered", but is left unscathed, or at least
with only minimal damage, when that supposedly 100-year storm hits, is
it actually over-engineered, or is it correctly engineered?

It depends on the owner's requirements. If the owner asked for a house
that could withstand an F5 tornado, and the house was just strong enough
to do that, then it was correctly engineered.

However, engineering requires balancing capability vs. cost. I can
design a house that will withstand pretty much any storm or hurricane
imaginable, but it would cost a fortune. Engineering is the art and
science of designing something that meets the stated requirements with
the minimum consumption of material and money.


It seems to me that the "minimum code" is just that. Minimum.
Unfortunately, nature doesn't pay much attention to statistics, and
storms are tending to get stronger, not weaker. So personally, I'd
prefer to pay more for something that is "over-engineered", and did pay
extra for things like Tech-Shield and Tyvek.

You are confusing over-built with over-engineered. They are different
concepts. It actually takes a lot more engineering to make a structure
as I described above - one that balances optimally performance vs. cost.
Designing something that far exceeds the required performance with
little regard to cost is actually much easier from an engineering
perspective.


Most people - well, most people just hink about what's cheap today, not
about what will cost less over a few years or even what will be safer if
a severe storm hits.

That isn't an engineering decision, however. That is a requirements
setting decision made by the person footing the bill.


Every year, without fail, we see news reports about "sufficiently
engineered" homes destroyed by natural events that are *known* to have
occured in their given areas, hence are a known risk. On average, those
non-average conditions are called "statistically insignificant", and
engineers are called upon to do their calcualtions and plans accordingly
- they're given a certain set of parameters and a certain budget, and
told to stay within those, regardless of whether or not they might think
it unwise to stay only withing the minimum/code. So, IMO, much of what
gets called "overengineering" is actually "engineered to withstand a
wider range of conditions than those which occur on average".

Engineering isn't the art and science of making indestructible
structures. That is my point.


Matt

"Chris Lewis" wrote
If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost.


Gotta ask, 'Do you have any experience at all with human interaction?"

If a client said to me what you described above my bootprints would be all
over his ass and I'd be on the phone to the glass company to get my front
door fixed.

But then again, maybe those are the type of people you attract.

To each his own.

*medium code* LOL

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to RicodJour :

There was an episode on where a homeowner bought a home where the
previous owner had done a ton of work without permits. Years later the
municipality is going after the current owner. Holmes was all ****ed
off at the previous homeowner instead of the real estate lawyers
involved, the title company, the realtors, the current owner for not
doing their homework, etc.

On the contrary, in that episode, Holmes pointed out that the buyer's
lawyer _knew_ of the problems and outstanding municipal work orders,
and failed to inform the buyer.

Can you say breach of trust?

The buyer's lawyer lost the resulting lawsuit.

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.

Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?

Matt Whiting wrote:
Don wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Warm Worm wrote:

"RicodJour"


You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some
sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet
makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different
codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this
stuff is
inexcusable.



Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how
over-engineering a house would affect a house's design, cost or
resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end
of it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd
be the same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.


No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.



Explain that term *needs to be*.


The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of a
given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need to
bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering is
making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond that
is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability are
considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the picture, right?

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.

Matt

One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):

"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".

It couldnt be summed up any better.

Mark

"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Don" wrote in
:

"EXT" wrote
I have observed over a number of years that the building code, while
it is to set structurally good minimum standards, is often a
compromise between the standards committee and large mass builders.
If you want to beef up an area of the code for whatever reason, the
builders will demand a reduction is another area to keep costs down.
I have seen areas in our local code where the standards have been
reduced to cut costs.

Thats not the case in SW FL where the costs of code compliance are
continuously rising, in some cases dramatically.
Probably the most expensive one in recent years was the requirement
for *200mph* windows, or shutters on all exterior openings.

THis is off onto a tangent, but, can shutters or some other sort of
hurricane shield be installed onto a brick exterior? I saw saomething
in Lowes that uses permanent bolts put into the brick as anchors for a
new sort of "fabric", or at least, pliable material. No pricing psoted
of course. But I don;t know how actual "shutters" could be installed
over/in brick...


No builder, regardless of size, can escape that requirement.
The cheap builders (tract homes) opt for the removeable shutters but
many of their homeowners are lazy and install the shutters at the
beginning of hurricane season and leave them on for the next 5 months.
This has caused issues with the fire depts and is dangerous as they
block *code required* egress windows on sleeping rooms.

I thought those things were motorized, or at least, functioned sort-of
like roll-up blinds... Wouldn't leaving them closed keep all the light
out of a house shudder...?

The very expensive homes have the remote controlled versions like you've
seen.
Homes under, say, $200k usually have the *portable* shutters that are
installed when necessary and stored in the garage when not in use.
They take up alot of space and are a royal pain to deal with. They are heavy
gauge corrugated steel panels that interlock with each other and are
anchored to any substrate with embedded steel pins.

Yes, keeping the shutters installed prohibit light from entering the rooms
but then, that makes for better TV watchin', doncha know?

As far as I know that structural fabric you mentioned is not valid regarding
the hurricane code, it won't stop the wind.

One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):

"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".

It couldnt be summed up any better.


Sure it can.. The real trick is building a bridge that
will carry the the design load, and cost as little as possible.
Making it just barely adequate isn't an objective, it's
a frequent side effect of trying to keep costs down.

That's why you frequently use parts that are a bit heavier
than you actually need, rather than having the ones you
actually need custom made.

And a really *GOOD* engineer knows when and how to
say... I know the specs call for X, but we can
dramatically improve the performance for only
about 4% more, are you sure you don't want to
do that? (and an employed engineer knows how
and when to take "no" for an answer...)

--Goedjn

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:33:55 -0500, "Don"
wrote:

"Chris Lewis" wrote
If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost.


Gotta ask, 'Do you have any experience at all with human interaction?"

If a client said to me what you described above my bootprints would be all
over his ass and I'd be on the phone to the glass company to get my front
door fixed.

But then again, maybe those are the type of people you attract.

To each his own.

*medium code* LOL


Strange phrasing, but remember that there are floor-stiffness
tables for L/360, L/480, and L/960...

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Kris Krieger wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.



I keep thinking of the program I saw on the Discovery Channel about
tornadoes - they showed one neighborhood (no basements of course)
where every house had been flattened and the population was decimated
- except for one guy and his family; he'd had a reinforced shelter
installed in the center of the house, and that shelter was the only
thing left standing, and he and his family were the only people left
without some sort of injury.

So, if something is "overengineered", but is left unscathed, or at
least with only minimal damage, when that supposedly 100-year storm
hits, is it actually over-engineered, or is it correctly engineered?

It depends on the owner's requirements. If the owner asked for a
house that could withstand an F5 tornado, and the house was just
strong enough to do that, then it was correctly engineered.

However, engineering requires balancing capability vs. cost. I can
design a house that will withstand pretty much any storm or hurricane
imaginable, but it would cost a fortune. Engineering is the art and
science of designing something that meets the stated requirements with
the minimum consumption of material and money.

Yup, that's why I thing the term "overengineered" is largely a matter of
perspective. In addition to, as you'd noted, capability and cost,
another consideration is how the person lives. If someone only needs,
say, a 700 sq ft space from their living needs, he can put more money
into making a strong structure.

I think the problems arise when the appearance of luxury takes precedence
over the capability of the structure to withstand fully-predictable, if
relatively uncommon, circumstances.

For example, it's fully predictable that, eventually, a hurricane of
another tropical storm along the lines of Allison will strike the Texas
coast, yet development after development has been built on land that is
barely a foot above sea level, and the places are not built all that
sturdily.

If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).






It seems to me that the "minimum code" is just that. Minimum.
Unfortunately, nature doesn't pay much attention to statistics, and
storms are tending to get stronger, not weaker. So personally, I'd
prefer to pay more for something that is "over-engineered", and did
pay extra for things like Tech-Shield and Tyvek.

You are confusing over-built with over-engineered. They are different
concepts. It actually takes a lot more engineering to make a
structure as I described above - one that balances optimally
performance vs. cost.

Maybe, but I didn't see the phrase 'over-built' previously in the thread,
and to be honest, I always thought the phrase meant more along the liines
of having lots of accoutrements and flourishes and so on. IOW, things
that don't add to the strength of the actual structure.

My example was only to illustrate that I personally would happliy willing
to buy a smaller place with more storm-resistance and more energy-
efficiency. I know that most peole want size because most value flash
more than substance (such as the place one real estate agent showed us -
the master closet alone was *literally* very near to the size of the
townhouse we'd rented in California).

Designing something that far exceeds the required performance with
little regard to cost is actually much easier from an engineering
perspective.

I'd guess so!


Most people - well, most people just hink about what's cheap today,
not about what will cost less over a few years or even what will be
safer if a severe storm hits.

That isn't an engineering decision, however. That is a requirements
setting decision made by the person footing the bill.


Every year, without fail, we see news reports about "sufficiently
engineered" homes destroyed by natural events that are *known* to
have occured in their given areas, hence are a known risk. On
average, those non-average conditions are called "statistically
insignificant", and engineers are called upon to do their
calcualtions and plans accordingly - they're given a certain set of
parameters and a certain budget, and told to stay within those,
regardless of whether or not they might think it unwise to stay only
withing the minimum/code. So, IMO, much of what gets called
"overengineering" is actually "engineered to withstand a wider range
of conditions than those which occur on average".

Engineering isn't the art and science of making indestructible
structures. That is my point.

I understand, it's just that it seems to me that too many places are
built jsut well enough to stand for 10 years, and only if statistics hold
and no severe storm hits.

I'm admittedly not separating what the engineers do, from what the
designers do and what (with development corporations) the marketing
people do. Mostly, I guess I'm saying that the engineers probably should
have a larger say in the matter, because marketers will always go for
"pizzaz" and designers, like the engineers, are at the mercy of the
financiers and marketers. OTOH, a good designer will look more at
whether a design is not merely huge, but actually liveable, and a good
engineer will look more at the strength, integrity, efficiency of HVAC
systems, insulation, and weather-resistance of the structure.

So, to use an analogy, if you have 2 houses on same size lots, next door
to each other, and both costing $250K, IOW built using the same bottom-
line budget maximum. The "normal" one will have more square footage,
might have more expensive lighting fixtures, fancier cabinets, granite
countertops, and so on - whereas the one that might be called "over-
engineered" would have less square footage, Corian or Silestone
countertops, plainer cabinets, basic lighting, and the like, but might
have, for example, doubled brick facing or might be of puured concrete,
or so on, that would be able to block most debris that would be whipped
around by hurricane-force winds.

If that's not what is meant by the term, sorry and please informe me of
the correct useage, so that I know for future reference - I mean that
honestly .

- K.

"Don" wrote in
:


"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Don" wrote in
:

"EXT" wrote
I have observed over a number of years that the building code,
while it is to set structurally good minimum standards, is often a
compromise between the standards committee and large mass builders.
If you want to beef up an area of the code for whatever reason, the
builders will demand a reduction is another area to keep costs
down. I have seen areas in our local code where the standards have
been reduced to cut costs.

Thats not the case in SW FL where the costs of code compliance are
continuously rising, in some cases dramatically.
Probably the most expensive one in recent years was the requirement
for *200mph* windows, or shutters on all exterior openings.

THis is off onto a tangent, but, can shutters or some other sort of
hurricane shield be installed onto a brick exterior? I saw
saomething in Lowes that uses permanent bolts put into the brick as
anchors for a new sort of "fabric", or at least, pliable material. No
pricing psoted of course. But I don;t know how actual "shutters"
could be installed over/in brick...


No builder, regardless of size, can escape that requirement.
The cheap builders (tract homes) opt for the removeable shutters but
many of their homeowners are lazy and install the shutters at the
beginning of hurricane season and leave them on for the next 5
months. This has caused issues with the fire depts and is dangerous
as they block *code required* egress windows on sleeping rooms.

I thought those things were motorized, or at least, functioned
sort-of like roll-up blinds... Wouldn't leaving them closed keep all
the light out of a house shudder...?

The very expensive homes have the remote controlled versions like
you've seen.
Homes under, say, $200k usually have the *portable* shutters that are
installed when necessary and stored in the garage when not in use.
They take up alot of space and are a royal pain to deal with. They are
heavy gauge corrugated steel panels that interlock with each other and
are anchored to any substrate with embedded steel pins.

Ah, I see now. The latter are still alot better than this business of
putting new nail-holes on one's house-frame every year or every couple
years; seems to me like taht is beggin for rot and other additional
damage to gain a foothold.


Yes, keeping the shutters installed prohibit light from entering the
rooms but then, that makes for better TV watchin', doncha know?

Er, ah, being a "light addict", well, actually, no =:-o I guess that
the cave-like blackness is supposed to be similar to a movie theater.....


As far as I know that structural fabric you mentioned is not valid
regarding the hurricane code, it won't stop the wind.


I certainly didn't see how it would stop anything significant. It wasn't
Kevlar or anything like that.

I was curious because we're still debating what, if anything, to do
with/to this place in terms of wind-protection. The motorized things
would be best, of course, but then one gets into the problem of "would I
ever be able to sell the place if need be, since it'd end up being
'overvalued' in comparison with the rest of the neighborhood".

At least the windows, being new, are tempered glass

If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).



If I lived in a tornado/hurricane area, I think I'd have a
blockhouse attached to an insulated tent.

In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).


That's why many people in those areas have a tornado shelter (often
underground).

It is not economically impossible to design a house for missile impacts
from 300 mph winds. The best you can hope for is to have a storm shelter
that can protect the occupants for a short period of time. Fallout
shelters from the 50's and 60's make a good choice.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

"Goedjn" wrote

If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).



If I lived in a tornado/hurricane area, I think I'd have a
blockhouse attached to an insulated tent.

If your money was right. :-)

"Bob Morrison" wrote
In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).


That's why many people in those areas have a tornado shelter (often
underground).

It is not economically impossible to design a house for missile impacts
from 300 mph winds. The best you can hope for is to have a storm shelter
that can protect the occupants for a short period of time. Fallout
shelters from the 50's and 60's make a good choice.

Thats the key, *short period of time*.
Simply, wind gets bored and goes elsewhere after a spell.

Goedjn wrote:
One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):

"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".

It couldnt be summed up any better.



Sure it can.. The real trick is building a bridge that
will carry the the design load, and cost as little as possible.
Making it just barely adequate isn't an objective, it's
a frequent side effect of trying to keep costs down.

That's why you frequently use parts that are a bit heavier
than you actually need, rather than having the ones you
actually need custom made.

And a really *GOOD* engineer knows when and how to
say... I know the specs call for X, but we can
dramatically improve the performance for only
about 4% more, are you sure you don't want to
do that? (and an employed engineer knows how
and when to take "no" for an answer...)

--Goedjn



Like I said, it was paraphrased. The intent of the statement is clear.
Anyone can cross a span by simply filling the void with concrete and
rubble leaving a small hole at the base. The art is in building a
structure that will carry, as you say, the design load. No more, no
less. The engineer, speaking on a national television documentary, was
surely not committing professional suicide by saying "what we practice
in our company is to cut every corner you can to reduce costs and just
make sure the bridge stands for a while".

Its as clear as kids in middle school building bridges with popsicle
sticks. Sure you can take a wheelbarrow full of popsicle sticks, dump it
in a hole and walk across. But the kid who gets you across the same span
with a gross of them is onto something.

Mark



Mark
Mark

M&S wrote:
Goedjn wrote:
One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):

"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".

It couldnt be summed up any better.



Sure it can.. The real trick is building a bridge that
will carry the the design load, and cost as little as possible.
Making it just barely adequate isn't an objective, it's
a frequent side effect of trying to keep costs down.

That's why you frequently use parts that are a bit heavier
than you actually need, rather than having the ones you
actually need custom made.

And a really *GOOD* engineer knows when and how to
say... I know the specs call for X, but we can
dramatically improve the performance for only
about 4% more, are you sure you don't want to
do that? (and an employed engineer knows how
and when to take "no" for an answer...)

--Goedjn



Like I said, it was paraphrased. The intent of the statement is clear.
Anyone can cross a span by simply filling the void with concrete and
rubble leaving a small hole at the base. The art is in building a
structure that will carry, as you say, the design load. No more, no
less. The engineer, speaking on a national television documentary, was
surely not committing professional suicide by saying "what we practice
in our company is to cut every corner you can to reduce costs and just
make sure the bridge stands for a while".

A number of years back I read a great article
in Scientific American about aquaducts, talk
about well built! IIRC it was designed to last
1000 years, that's engineering based on Roman
Numerals, the warranty expired 1000 years
ago, it's still there.

Its as clear as kids in middle school building bridges with popsicle
sticks. Sure you can take a wheelbarrow full of popsicle sticks, dump it
in a hole and walk across. But the kid who gets you across the same span
with a gross of them is onto something.

If you eat that many popsicles, you might need
to eat more to make the bridge stronger :-).
Ken

"M&S" wrote
The art is in building a structure that will carry, as you say, the design
load. No more, no less.

Something about that claim is bothersome.
Especially the *no more* part.

According to Don :
"Chris Lewis" wrote
If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost.

Gotta ask, 'Do you have any experience at all with human interaction?"

Every day.

If a client said to me what you described above my bootprints would be all
over his ass and I'd be on the phone to the glass company to get my front
door fixed.

Uh, you talk about booting a client through a glass door, and ask _me_
about human interaction skills?

That's hilarious!

I should point out that Holmes is actually _quite clear_ on the show
that there is only one code, and it's _minimum_ acceptable standards -
"medium" code is just a conversational device.

Anybody going to a contractor and saying "medium code" obviously hasn't
been following nor understanding what was actually being said.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to HVS :

(FWIW, I don't have a dog in this race -- AFAIK we don't get the
programme here in the UK -- but having read the thread, that looked
like an unfair hit....)

Ironically enough, the "station" most often airing Holmes on
Homes here is "BBC Canada" ;-)

[That's likely due in some part to CanCon rules and Canadian-specific
programming, but I'd be surprised if HoH didn't make it back to the UK
at all. We certainly get a lot of UK reno/decorating shows.]
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Don :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.

Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?

The OP is basing his criticism of HoH on the _content_ of the
TV show. I'm just pointing out that he's wrong about the content.
Which tends to poke holes in his argument.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Kris Krieger :
"Don" wrote in
:

As far as I know that structural fabric you mentioned is not valid
regarding the hurricane code, it won't stop the wind.

I certainly didn't see how it would stop anything significant. It wasn't
Kevlar or anything like that.

A couple of weeks ago I saw a Discovery channel segment on "hurricane
proofing" houses against projectiles. While it focused primarily
on walls themselves, some of the lessons it gave are useful with
windows. This was a formal study I think done by a department
covering "building science" at a US university IIRC.

Their test environment was a air canon shooting 2x4s lengthwise
at varying speeds at building envelope mockups.

Short of reinforced poured concrete (or presumably steel armor plate
;-), none of the rigid envelopes could stand up to a 125MPH 2x4. Even
(unfilled) cinderblock punctured. As did premanufactured
"hurricane shields" made out of fiberglass, and ordinary "stick
frame" with plywood sheathing and (even) brick veneer.

They quite simply shattered.

The one thing that did pass the test was a wall built up with
relatively ordinary stick construction with a heavy fiber
mesh layer. While the siding and sheathing punctured, the
mesh provided enough "give" to slow the projectile down and
prevent it from drilling all the way through the wall.

Conceptually, then, an appropriately engineered fabric (or mesh) _could_
protect windows, provided that (a) it was installed in such a way to
give the fabric "enough room" to operate (eg: suspended quite a bit out
from the window and firmly anchored so it can't bow in as far
as the window), (b) fine enough mesh to stop dangerously sized
projectiles and (c) it was installed at the time ;-)

Then again, ordinary windows normally won't stand up to the
air pressure differentials, so you have to improve the windows
anyway.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Chris Lewis wrote:

Anybody going to a contractor and saying "medium code" obviously hasn't
been following nor understanding what was actually being said.

That's the whole point. It's confusing to the people who don't know
the difference. If it's a "conversational device" it's frontier
gibberish.

Code is binary. Construction either meets it or it doesn't.

That malaprop/evidence-of-cluelessness is only one ding on Holmes'
record. There are a slew of them, almost always a few in each show.
Why does his show, purporting him to be the Ultimate Contractor
Get-You-Out-Of-A-Jam TV host have so many mistakes and the other shows
rarely make so many? Whether or not you agree with a particular show's
content, project budget, or the appearance of the hosts, Dean Johnson &
Hometime, Vila, TOH and others get it right and make few such mistakes.

Maybe it's just luck...?

R

According to Kris Krieger :

If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).

Look around, there's lots of material on this sort of thing produced
by various organizations. Universities, governments, trades.

For example, there are several sources (some trade, some US govt)
of information on how to build reasonably (for some value of
"reasonably") priced tornado proof "safe-rooms". They're not
big, they're not comfortable, but they do the job of protecting _you_
from a tornado.

[They should, the design I recall had, amongst other things, 1/4"
steel armor, and massively reinforced/anchored structure. ISTR, that
design would cost about $5-6K to have added to a "routine"
contractor-built on-slab house. Less if it was a basement, or you
could do much of it DIY.]
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to M&S :

One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):

"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".

Do you want to go on a bridge that's designed for "just barely?" ;-)

There is always a designed-in safety factor - in things that are
intended to last for a very long time, the safety factors are large.

The hallmark of _good_ engineering is to engineer something where
you know _exactly_ when it will break, so you can trust your safety
margins, and understand the environmentals so you know whether your
"expected load requirements" is accurate or not.

With things like cable/beam strengths the required safety margins
to breaking load are often on the order of 10 _times_ the rated
strength.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote
I should point out that Holmes is actually _quite clear_ on the show
that there is only one code, and it's _minimum_ acceptable standards -
"medium" code is just a conversational device.


No its not and you should know better.
But then again, maybe you shouldn't. LOL

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Don :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.

Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?

The OP is basing his criticism of HoH on the _content_ of the
TV show. I'm just pointing out that he's wrong about the content.
Which tends to poke holes in his argument.

So you ARE arguing the validity of a TV show.
Thanks for clarifying.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Kris Krieger :
"Don" wrote in
:

As far as I know that structural fabric you mentioned is not valid
regarding the hurricane code, it won't stop the wind.

I certainly didn't see how it would stop anything significant. It wasn't
Kevlar or anything like that.

A couple of weeks ago I saw a Discovery channel segment on "hurricane
proofing" houses against projectiles. While it focused primarily
on walls themselves, some of the lessons it gave are useful with
windows. This was a formal study I think done by a department
covering "building science" at a US university IIRC.

Their test environment was a air canon shooting 2x4s lengthwise
at varying speeds at building envelope mockups.

Short of reinforced poured concrete (or presumably steel armor plate
;-), none of the rigid envelopes could stand up to a 125MPH 2x4. Even
(unfilled) cinderblock punctured. As did premanufactured
"hurricane shields" made out of fiberglass, and ordinary "stick
frame" with plywood sheathing and (even) brick veneer.

They quite simply shattered.

The one thing that did pass the test was a wall built up with
relatively ordinary stick construction with a heavy fiber
mesh layer. While the siding and sheathing punctured, the
mesh provided enough "give" to slow the projectile down and
prevent it from drilling all the way through the wall.

Conceptually, then, an appropriately engineered fabric (or mesh) _could_
protect windows, provided that (a) it was installed in such a way to
give the fabric "enough room" to operate (eg: suspended quite a bit out
from the window and firmly anchored so it can't bow in as far
as the window), (b) fine enough mesh to stop dangerously sized
projectiles and (c) it was installed at the time ;-)

Then again, ordinary windows normally won't stand up to the
air pressure differentials, so you have to improve the windows
anyway.

Another TV show.
sigh
Dood, I've designed THOUSANDS of homes in SW Florida, where the code is
minimal 130mph and has been for years.
The specific homes I design are custom, 3 stories or better, 4000 sf or
larger, on barrier islands, stick built.
Turn the toob off and fraternize with some REAL people that live in the REAL
world.
sheesh........where do these people come from?.....raised on TEEVEE........

According to Don :

Another TV show.
sigh
Dood, I've designed THOUSANDS of homes in SW Florida, where the code is
minimal 130mph and has been for years.
The specific homes I design are custom, 3 stories or better, 4000 sf or
larger, on barrier islands, stick built.

That's very nice, but have you tested them with 2x4s travelling 125MPH
or better? ;-)

[Code "130mph" means that the building won't blow over. Penetration
by thrown objects is another thing.]

Geeze, report on a scientific study _specifically_ on testing building
penetration by thrown objects, in response to a posting about
window breakage under similar circumstances, and somehow this is a
diatribe about watching TV?

ABSOLUTELY, it may not have a hell of a lot of relevance to existing
building code or practise, and as such has not resulted in changes
to building code, _yet_, but it certainly does have relevance to the
specific question about wind blown objects. And I thought it interesting
anyway.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Don :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Don :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.

Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?

The OP is basing his criticism of HoH on the _content_ of the
TV show. I'm just pointing out that he's wrong about the content.
Which tends to poke holes in his argument.

So you ARE arguing the validity of a TV show.

No, just arguing the accuracy of the OP's _observation_ of the
show.

You do appreciate the difference, don't you?
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Don :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Don :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.

Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?

The OP is basing his criticism of HoH on the _content_ of the
TV show. I'm just pointing out that he's wrong about the content.
Which tends to poke holes in his argument.

So you ARE arguing the validity of a TV show.

No, just arguing the accuracy of the OP's _observation_ of the
show.

You do appreciate the difference, don't you?

OK, I'm done with this thing.
I watch less than a hour of TV per week and don't really care what goes on
on it.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Don :

Another TV show.
sigh
Dood, I've designed THOUSANDS of homes in SW Florida, where the code is
minimal 130mph and has been for years.
The specific homes I design are custom, 3 stories or better, 4000 sf or
larger, on barrier islands, stick built.

That's very nice, but have you tested them with 2x4s travelling 125MPH
or better? ;-)

You're WAY outta your league jr.

BTW: *200 mph windows* have been REQUIRED in all homes in SWFL for at least
4 years now.
** The alternative is shutters.


[Code "130mph" means that the building won't blow over. Penetration
by thrown objects is another thing.]

Geeze, report on a scientific study _specifically_ on testing building
penetration by thrown objects, in response to a posting about
window breakage under similar circumstances, and somehow this is a
diatribe about watching TV?

ABSOLUTELY, it may not have a hell of a lot of relevance to existing
building code or practise, and as such has not resulted in changes
to building code, _yet_, but it certainly does have relevance to the
specific question about wind blown objects. And I thought it interesting
anyway.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.