I am debating weather to use the Kingspan 8'x 4' sheets or
the Rockwoll roll 100 x 400 to insulate a suspended timber ground
floor.

I have looked on the repsective websites for these manufacture's and
cannot find the answer.
The Kingspan references U-Values but these mean nothing to me!

What would give me the best results bearing in mind the cost
difference per m^2.
Roughly half the price for Rockwool!

Regards,
Rich

I am debating weather to use the Kingspan 8'x 4' sheets or
the Rockwoll roll 100 x 400 to insulate a suspended timber ground
floor.

Kingspan is vastly better on U-Values per unit thickness. U-Values are very
important and if I were you, I'd make the effort to understand what they
mean. However, it is cheaper to get the same U-Value through rockwool.
Unfortunately, this will be acquired by using a thickness many times that of
the Kingspan. The installation details will determine if this is a problem.
For installing in loft conversions where thinness is the key, Kingspan (or
Celotex) rules. If you have loads of space to work in, and there are no damp
concerns, rockwool may be more cost effective.

Christian.

Rich wrote:

I am debating weather to use the Kingspan 8'x 4' sheets or
the Rockwoll roll 100 x 400 to insulate a suspended timber ground
floor.

I have looked on the repsective websites for these manufacture's and
cannot find the answer.
The Kingspan references U-Values but these mean nothing to me!

What would give me the best results bearing in mind the cost
difference per m^2.
Roughly half the price for Rockwool!



If you have the depth ise the wool, teh kingspan is superior in terms of
insulation per unit depth, so is used where depth is limited.


Regards,
Rich

Christian McArdle wrote:

I am debating weather to use the Kingspan 8'x 4' sheets or
the Rockwoll roll 100 x 400 to insulate a suspended timber ground
floor.


Kingspan is vastly better on U-Values per unit thickness. U-Values are very
important and if I were you, I'd make the effort to understand what they
mean. However, it is cheaper to get the same U-Value through rockwool.
Unfortunately, this will be acquired by using a thickness many times that of
the Kingspan.


No. approximately twice, not many times.

he installation details will determine if this is a problem.
For installing in loft conversions where thinness is the key, Kingspan (or
Celotex) rules. If you have loads of space to work in, and there are no damp
concerns, rockwool may be more cost effective.

Christian.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:16:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Rich wrote:

I am debating weather to use the Kingspan 8'x 4' sheets or
the Rockwoll roll 100 x 400 to insulate a suspended timber ground
floor.

I have looked on the repsective websites for these manufacture's and
cannot find the answer.
The Kingspan references U-Values but these mean nothing to me!

What would give me the best results bearing in mind the cost
difference per m^2.
Roughly half the price for Rockwool!



If you have the depth ise the wool, teh kingspan is superior in terms of
insulation per unit depth, so is used where depth is limited.


Celotex and Kingspan also have vapour barriers on both sides. It is
also much easier and quicker to fit these boards. You simply cut
them to width and then put in nails or other suitable supports on each
side of each joist. Lay the foam sheet in place and that's it - it's
self supporting.

For a soft blanket material, time and effort is needed to put in a
suitable arrangement to hold it in place.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl