On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:59:29 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:57:06 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I notice that as usual, you didn't mention any of the disadvantages of
these materials such as the effects of insect and rodent infestation.

On SIPs? Please give examples. It is best you stop making things up.


I never do that.

www.huduser.org/publications/wpd/finalrpt.wp5

"One potential disadvantage is that foam core panels are susceptible
to tunneling by termites, carpenter ants, and rodents that can destroy
the structural integrity of the assembly. This is especially
troublesome because the tunnels are difficult to detect. Where
termites pose a threat, standard preventive measures should be used
such as soil treatment or termite shields. At least one panel
manufacturer has incorporated borate into their expanded polystyrene
core as an insect repellent, but the effectiveness is not
well-documented to date. Apparently other foam materials are not as
receptive to treatment. "


Other integrity problems as well.

http://www.sipweb.com/2001-10_juneau.pdf

The houses built in Alaska were not errected correctly. The problems were
nothing to do with the SIP panles themselves. If you poorly errect any house
of any contruction you will have problems.

A Google will bring out the results of the Alaska failures.

....Any more tripe?

The point is that they are subject to problems depending on climate
and depending on how they are used and by whom.

Since this is a structural component, it follows that any problem has
the potential to affect the structural integrity of the building and
to be expensive to correct.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:44:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:57:06 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I notice that as usual, you didn't mention any of the disadvantages
of
these materials such as the effects of insect and rodent
infestation.

On SIPs? Please give examples. It is best you stop making things up.


I never do that.

www.huduser.org/publications/wpd/finalrpt.wp5

"One potential disadvantage is that foam core panels are susceptible
to tunneling by termites, carpenter ants, and rodents that can destroy
the structural integrity of the assembly. This is especially
troublesome because the tunnels are difficult to detect. Where
termites pose a threat, standard preventive measures should be used
such as soil treatment or termite shields. At least one panel
manufacturer has incorporated borate into their expanded polystyrene
core as an insect repellent, but the effectiveness is not
well-documented to date. Apparently other foam materials are not as
receptive to treatment. "

You missed this
"one panel manufacturer has incorporated borate into their expanded
polystyrene core as an insect repellent"

We also do not have termites like the
USA does. Infestation of these panels
is not a problem in the UK.

We certainly have rodents, and we
certainly have the potential for rot
and the various weevils and other
creatures who love to follow it.

These creatures would attack any wood. Timber farmed houses in the UK are
common with many being around for 500 years or more. The oldest is from the
11th century.

It is impossible to say what the
long term implications of these are
in the UK environment because there
is too little history and too
small an installed base.

Total nonsense. The USA & Canada has a large install base with many of the
panels in climates colder and wetter than the UK. We also do not have the
boring insects as north America does, and they have few problems with SIPs.

People fail to mention concrete cancer, which is more common that what
people think in UK in houses. Far more common than timber homes failing.

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM writes

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:33:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


That price is so vague it is not worth considering.

If I had said £30.00 to £3,000 per sq m that would have been vague.
£750 on the other hand is not vague at all but quite precise.

£750 for what? You have to know the size, construction type and fitments
to
have a firm figure.

Of course you do, but the OP is not
expecting a precise figure for
building this hypothetical house which
he has not even designed yet.

and he was given one.

The figure would have to a range from...to.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:14:17 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.sipweb.com/2001-10_juneau.pdf

Here is what happened.....all installation problems....


Rotting SIP roofs in Juneau Part I: The Base Line Info

by Steve Andrews

SIP Manufacturers Respond

Mike Bryan, Premier Building Systems
"What I know is there were a number of Premier panels, back when we were an
R-Control plant, that were installed in Juneau, and now we have problems
with the top layer of OSB turning to mush," said Premier's Mike Bryan.

"Last February through May, we sent three different people up on four
different occasions. During our investigations, we determined that there
were numerous problems with the installations. The builder's liability
insurance company paid the entire bill. The problems with the installations
were so flagrant that they didn't have much choice. The good news is that
80%-90% of the people want replacement panels on their new roofs."


Fine. It does, however, illustrate that there can be installation
problems, and I already mentioned the potential for infestations.

Neither is intended to say that this technology may not have some use,
but it is certainly not without its share of issues.

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.

In any event, a manufacturer is hardly likely to say that problems are
inherent in his product, is he?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:59:29 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:57:06 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I notice that as usual, you didn't mention any of the disadvantages
of
these materials such as the effects of insect and rodent
infestation.

On SIPs? Please give examples. It is best you stop making things up.


I never do that.

www.huduser.org/publications/wpd/finalrpt.wp5

"One potential disadvantage is that foam core panels are susceptible
to tunneling by termites, carpenter ants, and rodents that can destroy
the structural integrity of the assembly. This is especially
troublesome because the tunnels are difficult to detect. Where
termites pose a threat, standard preventive measures should be used
such as soil treatment or termite shields. At least one panel
manufacturer has incorporated borate into their expanded polystyrene
core as an insect repellent, but the effectiveness is not
well-documented to date. Apparently other foam materials are not as
receptive to treatment. "


Other integrity problems as well.

http://www.sipweb.com/2001-10_juneau.pdf

The houses built in Alaska were not errected correctly. The problems were
nothing to do with the SIP panles themselves. If you poorly errect any
house
of any contruction you will have problems.

A Google will bring out the results of the Alaska failures.

....Any more tripe?

The point is that they are subject to
problems depending on climate
and depending on how they are
used and by whom.

You are a full mentalist! That is clear.

The problem was due to the panels not being erected properly, NOT usage,
climate or by whoever lived or walked in and out them. Boy oh boy!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:14:17 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.sipweb.com/2001-10_juneau.pdf

Here is what happened.....all installation problems....


Rotting SIP roofs in Juneau Part I: The Base Line Info

by Steve Andrews

SIP Manufacturers Respond

Mike Bryan, Premier Building Systems
"What I know is there were a number of Premier panels, back when we were
an
R-Control plant, that were installed in Juneau, and now we have problems
with the top layer of OSB turning to mush," said Premier's Mike Bryan.

"Last February through May, we sent three different people up on four
different occasions. During our investigations, we determined that there
were numerous problems with the installations. The builder's liability
insurance company paid the entire bill. The problems with the
installations
were so flagrant that they didn't have much choice. The good news is that
80%-90% of the people want replacement panels on their new roofs."

Fine. It does, however, illustrate
that there can be installation
problems,

That is the case with any construction method.

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.

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?

When compiling a list of advantage and disadvantages the disadvantages are
few and far between.

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 you don't follow the
instruction with IKEA furniture it wobbles.

In any event, a manufacturer is hardly
likely to say that problems are
inherent in his product, is he?

An official report put it squarly with shoddy workmanship.

You can buy the SIP Association report if you like:
http://www.sips.org/publications/stuff.html

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:49:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




These creatures would attack any wood. Timber farmed houses in the UK are
common with many being around for 500 years or more. The oldest is from the
11th century.

So consider what can happen if a hidden piece of a panel which gives
it structural strength is compromised invisibly


It is impossible to say what the
long term implications of these are
in the UK environment because there
is too little history and too
small an installed base.

Total nonsense.

No. The installed base in the UK is small and the history short.

The USA & Canada has a large install base with many of the
panels in climates colder and wetter than the UK. We also do not have the
boring insects as north America does, and they have few problems with SIPs.

Take a look at what happens after water has been in contact with
timber for a period, Weevils show up and chew the softened material.



People fail to mention concrete cancer, which is more common that what
people think in UK in houses.

Really. I found the following:

Concrete is the bogeyman of the late 20th century built environment,
says Professor Andrew Beeby, University of Leeds civil engineering
lecturer and a member of the Magazine of Concrete Research's editorial
panel.

"Concrete is the run down council estate, the syringe-strewn tower
block, the deserted shopping arcade.

In the post-war period, people were desperate to build a lot of
housing very quickly. Concrete was an ideal material."

Takes us back to Milton Keynes, I guess.

However, he goes on to say:

The nicely alliterative phrase "concrete cancer" - an unwelcome
reaction between the component cement and aggregate - has also done
the material a disservice, says Mr Beeby.

"Concrete cancer has enjoyed a lot of media coverage and prompted a
huge amount of research. It is very rare and tends to make a structure
look nasty rather than render it unsafe."


Far more common than timber homes failing.

That's probably not difficult if one considers the numbers of each.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:56:17 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



A Google will bring out the results of the Alaska failures.

....Any more tripe?

The point is that they are subject to
problems depending on climate
and depending on how they are
used and by whom.

You are a full mentalist! That is clear.

The problem was due to the panels not being erected properly, NOT usage,
climate or by whoever lived or walked in and out them. Boy oh boy!



Installation is an aspect of usage.

The product is marketed as being easy and practically idiot proof.

It isn't, and the cost of fixing problems can be pretty high.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:49:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




These creatures would attack any wood.
Timber farmed houses in the UK are
common with many being around for 500
years or more. The oldest is from the
11th century.

So consider what can happen if a
hidden piece of a panel which gives
it structural strength is compromised invisibly

The point made clearly is that it is not a problem.

It is impossible to say what the
long term implications of these are
in the UK environment because there
is too little history and too
small an installed base.

Total nonsense.

No. The installed base in the UK is small and the history short.

The USA & Canada has a large install base with many of the
panels in climates colder and wetter than the UK. We also do not have
the
boring insects as north America does, and they have few problems with
SIPs.

Take a look at what happens after
water has been in contact with
timber for a period, Weevils show up
and chew the softened material.

When constructed properly water does not get in. The millions of existing
timber homes in the UK, many going back centuries, demonstrates this.

People fail to mention concrete cancer, which is more common that what
people think in UK in houses.

Really. I found the following:

Concrete is the bogeyman of the late 20th century built environment,
says Professor Andrew Beeby, University of Leeds civil engineering
lecturer and a member of the Magazine of Concrete Research's editorial
panel.

"Concrete is the run down council estate, the syringe-strewn tower
block, the deserted shopping arcade.

In the post-war period, people were desperate to build a lot of
housing very quickly. Concrete was an ideal material."

Takes us back to Milton Keynes, I guess.

No, as Milton Keynes only started in the mid 1970s, and is still being
built.

However, he goes on to say:

The nicely alliterative phrase "concrete cancer" - an unwelcome
reaction between the component cement and aggregate - has also done
the material a disservice, says Mr Beeby.

"Concrete cancer has enjoyed a lot of media coverage and prompted a
huge amount of research. It is very rare and tends to make a structure
look nasty rather than render it unsafe."

Far more common than timber homes failing.

That's probably not difficult if one considers the numbers of each.

In percentage terms concrete has given more problems than timber.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:56:17 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



A Google will bring out the results of the Alaska failures.

....Any more tripe?

The point is that they are subject to
problems depending on climate
and depending on how they are
used and by whom.

You are a full mentalist! That is clear.

The problem was due to the panels not being erected properly, NOT usage,
climate or by whoever lived or walked in and out them. Boy oh boy!

Installation is an aspect of usage.

You are clearly a full mentalist.

The product is marketed as being
easy and practically idiot proof.

It is as long as you follow the instructions.

It isn't,

It is as long as you follow the instructions.

and the cost of fixing problems can be pretty high.

What problems? Where? what?

The cost of rectifying problems with foundations is high, the problems of
replacing 14 bricks that are too porous and have shattered by ice is low.

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, and when things do go wrong, they are
expensive to fix.

This is not necessarily a reason not to use the technology, but the
suppliers should at least be honest in their claims - it is not all
plain sailing.


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.



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.



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. Removing entire roofs and walls is not everybody's
idea of fun.



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.

Unless used as part of a factory prefabricated construction, mistakes
can be made.

If you don't follow the
instruction with IKEA furniture it wobbles.

In any event, a manufacturer is hardly
likely to say that problems are
inherent in his product, is he?

An official report put it squarly with shoddy workmanship.

You can buy the SIP Association report if you like:
http://www.sips.org/publications/stuff.html


I'll skip that. It's very easy for manufacturers to blame shoddy
workmanship, and undoubtedly this is a problem.

However, they should not then market their product and technology as
idiot proof when it plainly is not.

You can't have it both ways.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

It is idiot proof if you follow the instructions. If you don't follow the
instruction with IKEA furniture it wobbles.


Idiot proof if not used by an idiot then.

Ha ha ha ha ha

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:14:29 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:49:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




These creatures would attack any wood.
Timber farmed houses in the UK are
common with many being around for 500
years or more. The oldest is from the
11th century.

So consider what can happen if a
hidden piece of a panel which gives
it structural strength is compromised invisibly

The point made clearly is that it is not a problem.

Unless you're the homeowner and the walls or roof have to be removed
and replaced.




When constructed properly water does not get in. The millions of existing
timber homes in the UK, many going back centuries, demonstrates this.

I wasn't talking about timber construction, only about foam filled
OSB. The two are not the same as the manufacturers point out.



People fail to mention concrete cancer, which is more common that what
people think in UK in houses.

Really. I found the following:

Concrete is the bogeyman of the late 20th century built environment,
says Professor Andrew Beeby, University of Leeds civil engineering
lecturer and a member of the Magazine of Concrete Research's editorial
panel.

"Concrete is the run down council estate, the syringe-strewn tower
block, the deserted shopping arcade.

In the post-war period, people were desperate to build a lot of
housing very quickly. Concrete was an ideal material."

Takes us back to Milton Keynes, I guess.

No, as Milton Keynes only started in the mid 1970s, and is still being
built.

Scary thought.


However, he goes on to say:

The nicely alliterative phrase "concrete cancer" - an unwelcome
reaction between the component cement and aggregate - has also done
the material a disservice, says Mr Beeby.

"Concrete cancer has enjoyed a lot of media coverage and prompted a
huge amount of research. It is very rare and tends to make a structure
look nasty rather than render it unsafe."

Far more common than timber homes failing.

That's probably not difficult if one considers the numbers of each.

In percentage terms concrete has given more problems than timber.

Who knows. I wasn't talking about traditional timber framed
construction anyway.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , John Laird
wrote:
However the nice new extension that you get built will have to
comply with building regs and will have a good deep foundation.
Then you are bound to get cracking cos the two bits of houses
will have differential movement

Don't follow this - if the existing structure is presumed not to
be going anywhere anymore, and the extension has foundations
sufficient to stop it also going anywhere, then the two are going
nowhere together, no ?

It's more likely to be the other way round. The extension, on 2004
foundations, will settle a little then stop. Meanwhile if the
existing house is on shallow foundations on shrinkable clay it will
move up and down over the seasons as it has done for 100 years.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:17:51 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


The product is marketed as being
easy and practically idiot proof.

It is as long as you follow the instructions.

It isn't,

It is as long as you follow the instructions.

Neither is "How to build an H bomb" by Edward Teller.

The point is that in the example given it was possible to have a
horrendous outcome of roofs needing to be replaced when the typical
tradespeople who should know how to do the job ended up with a shoddy
result.

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
and so does have potential disadvantages.

You would be better off not reading manufacturer web sites and
accepting all that they say unquestioningly.

Inevitably, there will be another side to the story - there always is.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:46:58 +0100, Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Imm wrote:
If I had said £30.00 to £3,000 per sq m that would have been vague.
£750 on the other hand is not vague at all but quite precise.

£750 for what? You have to know the size, construction type and
fitments to have a firm figure.

http://www.abi.org.uk/Public/Consume...calculator.asp

For a modern 100m2 semi it gives figures of £73,800 and £95,9000
for London/SE and Wales/Scotland/NE. Playing around with some
other options suggests that £1000 would be a safer ballpark figure

From BCIS (subscription only) One off housing, 2 storey current UK average
prices:
mean £1059, median £867, min £359, max £2918
All costs per m2 gross internal floor area, exluding external works,
drainage, service connections, land, fees.

Wouldn't it be more expensive building on a ball-park than on an existing
serviced plot?

No, its just that obtaining planning permission and ownership of the land
that is more difficult/expensive. Building costs will be similar, provided
heavy plant can get through the stadium doors.

Christian.

"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.

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.

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.

- it is not all plain sailing.

It is. A waetherproof shell can be up within a few days.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

If you don't follow the
instruction with IKEA furniture it wobbles.

In any event, a manufacturer is hardly
likely to say that problems are
inherent in his product, is he?

An official report put it squarly with shoddy workmanship.

You can buy the SIP Association report if you like:
http://www.sips.org/publications/stuff.html


I'll skip that. It's very easy for manufacturers
to blame shoddy workmanship,

The official US government report sated shoddy workmanship.

and undoubtedly this is a problem.

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.

You can't have it both ways.

You can. SIPs are near enough a panacea. 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. 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.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:14:29 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:49:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




These creatures would attack any wood.
Timber farmed houses in the UK are
common with many being around for 500
years or more. The oldest is from the
11th century.

So consider what can happen if a
hidden piece of a panel which gives
it structural strength is compromised invisibly

The point made clearly is that it is not a problem.

Unless you're the homeowner and the walls or roof have to be removed
and replaced.

Your mentalism gets the better of you. repeat: The point made clearly is
that it is not a problem.

When constructed properly water does not get in. The millions of existing
timber homes in the UK, many going back centuries, demonstrates this.

I wasn't talking about timber construction, only about foam filled
OSB. The two are not the same as the manufacturers point out.

The same condition affect both.

People fail to mention concrete cancer, which is more common that what
people think in UK in houses.

Really. I found the following:

Concrete is the bogeyman of the late 20th century built environment,
says Professor Andrew Beeby, University of Leeds civil engineering
lecturer and a member of the Magazine of Concrete Research's editorial
panel.

"Concrete is the run down council estate, the syringe-strewn tower
block, the deserted shopping arcade.

In the post-war period, people were desperate to build a lot of
housing very quickly. Concrete was an ideal material."

Takes us back to Milton Keynes, I guess.

No, as Milton Keynes only started in the mid 1970s, and is still being
built.

Scary thought.

Must be for a Luddite like you.

However, he goes on to say:

The nicely alliterative phrase "concrete cancer" - an unwelcome
reaction between the component cement and aggregate - has also done
the material a disservice, says Mr Beeby.

"Concrete cancer has enjoyed a lot of media coverage and prompted a
huge amount of research. It is very rare and tends to make a structure
look nasty rather than render it unsafe."

Far more common than timber homes failing.

That's probably not difficult if one considers the numbers of each.

In percentage terms concrete has given more problems than timber.

Who knows. I wasn't talking about
traditional timber framed
construction anyway.

Same conditions affect both. BTW, take away the wood from a supposedly
masonry British house and there not much left. Wood is everywhere in homes.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:17:51 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


The product is marketed as being
easy and practically idiot proof.

It is as long as you follow the instructions.

It isn't,

It is as long as you follow the instructions.

Neither is "How to build an H bomb" by Edward Teller.

The point is that in the example given
it was possible to have a
horrendous outcome of roofs needing
to be replaced when the typical
tradespeople who should know how to
do the job ended up with a shoddy
result.

The same can be said for any type of construction. This doesn't sink in
does it!

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.

and so does have potential disadvantages.

What might they be?

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.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Wouldn't it be more expensive building on a ball-park than on an
existing
serviced plot?

No, its just that obtaining planning permission and ownership of the land
that is more difficult/expensive. Building costs will be similar, provided
heavy plant can get through the stadium doors.

Southampton FC, Leicester City FC and Wembley stadium will probably give you
better figures. Wembley is costing more than all the stadia built by
Portugal for Euro 2004. Use that figure.

Southampton FC, Leicester City FC and Wembley stadium will probably give
you
better figures. Wembley is costing more than all the stadia built by
Portugal for Euro 2004. Use that figure.

I'm not sure how the costs of building Wembley are relevent to the cost of
building a 2 storey residential house, even if done on the centre circle.

Christian.

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

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:21:17 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Same conditions affect both. BTW, take away the wood from a supposedly
masonry British house and there not much left. Wood is everywhere in homes.

No ****, Sherlock.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:


You are clearly a full mentalist.

Do you get paid for "ad words" like google? Find some dumb phrase for
the month, and see how often you can repeat it.

Or is just that English is your second language? Perhaps you are a
recent migrant to this country?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

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.

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.

For a technology to be successful, it does have to be easily
implemented or the outcome will be a failure.

I haven't said that SIPs can't be useful or successful, nor have I
disputed their popularity.

However, demonstrably, poor execution can lead to a poor outcome, so
they are not the panacea that you claim. Some level of ability and
supervision is still required.



and so does have potential disadvantages.

What might they be?

I think 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 are the one who has tried to portray this technology as perfect.
Demonstrably, it is not.

No doubt it is possible to use the technology successfully, but it is
not perfect and is subject to problems in certain circumstances.

Those are the objective facts. It may be that the failure rate in
properties is 1% or even 0.1%, but that still represents a failure,
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.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:46:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

IMM wrote:


You are clearly a full mentalist.

Do you get paid for "ad words" like google? Find some dumb phrase for
the month, and see how often you can repeat it.

Or is just that English is your second language? Perhaps you are a
recent migrant to this country?



It's just a new phase and goes along with the heating system of the
month.

He'll get bored and find another phrase that he doesn't understand to
overuse soon.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:46:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

IMM wrote:


You are clearly a full mentalist.

Do you get paid for "ad words" like google? Find some dumb phrase for
the month, and see how often you can repeat it.

Or is just that English is your second language? Perhaps you are a
recent migrant to this country?



It's just a new phase and goes along with the heating system of the
month.

He'll get bored and find another phrase that he doesn't understand to
overuse soon.


Agreed. I somehow doubt that he knows the meaning of the word in the first
place.

Cheers
Clive

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote
| I'd have thought so - but I don't call 150 years "very, very old"!
| Reminds me of when I first went to america and was proudly shown
| "the oldest house on the island" - it was 90 yo.

I was reading posts elsewhere about someone's trip to Abu Dhabi and the
local museum showed what life was like in "Old" Abu Dhabi ... in 1974, I
think, before the oil brought prosperity, skyscrapers, desalination plants
and cheap immigrant labour.

Yes, it's all relative ...

Mary

Owain

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:49:34 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:53:50 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


What is the cost of errecting a new traditionally built bog-standard
detached house with two to three bedrooms?

GBP750 per sq m.

Short and sweet! Thanks, Peter.

MM

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:23:36 +0100, Another Dave
wrote:

IMM wrote:

That price is so vague it is not worth considering.



Let's remember what the OP asked:

"What is the cost of errecting a new traditionally built bog-standard
detached house with two to three bedrooms? I'm talking ball-park here."

Ball-park is what he asks for and that's what he got.

And I'm happy enough with it! That is not to say I don't welcome all
the other prices given, as I know that costs will vary greatly
depending on many factors. The reason I asked was that if the
underpinning turns out to have been botched, or it needs (will need)
underpinning again in five or ten years, or the house is damp or
because of a host of other reasons it is not a viable property long
term, it may be worth pulling it down and rebuilding, given that the
plot size is fairly generous.

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:

Okay, here's the story. I am now considering a property in
Lincolnshire. This is a very, very old cottage, at least 150 years,

Thats not very very old. Thats not evn old.

the house across thwa ment9ned in teh domesday book is very old.

Skara brae is very very old.

I
reckon. The setting is isolated and idyllic. But I made some enquiries
from the agent, who told me that the building had been underpinned at
the rear some years ago. I have not yet visited the property.

Some questions:

Buildings of that era had no foundations, true?

Depends. Irs stood for 150 years already...

Does underpinning cure, or postpone, a problem?

Cure.

What is the cost of errecting a new traditionally built bog-standard
detached house with two to three bedrooms?

About 60 quid a square foot for basic shell. Budget double that by the
time its habitable the way you want it. YMMV. A lot depends on hwo
interesting you want it to be.

I'm talking ball-park here.
Absolutely bog-standard, but well constructed, with cavity walls,
solid internal walls, at least downstairs, lots of insulation, quality
windows and doors, floorboards instead of chipboard. In effect, what
would the building cost be for a slighlty better than "council house"
design? £60,000? £80,000? This has to be for the finished habitable,
product.

If house has stood anyway for 150 years, it's likely to remain for a
good few years yet, true?

Not necessarily. If its timber and teh rot has set in, its gone already.

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:



Thanks for the tips about the foundations, etc. But I'm not in the
slightest bit interested in SIPs, straw bales, that kind of thing. To
me a house is a house that is built like a brick outhouse, end of
story. Bricks, mortar, windows, a chimney, and a fireplace. Simple. I
don't care if it's a bit draughty.

You may not, but the BCO will.

Nice cavity insulated rendered basic concrete block house with decent
tiles on eh?

Do put in underfloor heating tho.

and amins preessure hot water system, not one of those fashionable
religious icons - combis.

And chinmeys and a real fire place.


MM

Peter Parry wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:33:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



That price is so vague it is not worth considering.


If I had said £30.00 to £3,000 per sq m that would have been vague.
£750 on the other hand is not vague at all but quite precise. It may
be wrong, but it remains precise. As a planning figure I suggest it
is not far off.

I agree. 60 a sq ft is about £600 a sq meter, which I found close for a
basic shell. You can easily double that in the fitout tho.


The cost of construction, all other things being equal, relates to
the size of the house so a cost per sq m of floor area is more
helpful than "x for a y bedroom" as 3 or 4 bedroom is meaningless
other than to estate agents.

Yes. Its amazing how close this price per sq foot actually is. Almost
iorrespective of anything - since most of te cost is labout it realytes
to basically how much time it takes to erect a certain square footage,
wire it plumb it plaster it paint it put windows in it and heat it.

IMM wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:33:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



That price is so vague it is not worth considering.

If I had said £30.00 to £3,000 per sq m that would have been vague.
£750 on the other hand is not vague at all but quite precise.


£750 for what? You have to know the size, construction type and fitments to
have a firm figure.


No you don't. But then you haven't built a house: I have.

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:57:06 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I notice that as usual, you didn't mention any of the disadvantages of
these materials such as the effects of insect and rodent infestation.

On SIPs? Please give examples. It is best you stop making things up.


I never do that.

www.huduser.org/publications/wpd/finalrpt.wp5

"One potential disadvantage is that foam core panels are susceptible
to tunneling by termites, carpenter ants, and rodents that can destroy
the structural integrity of the assembly. This is especially
troublesome because the tunnels are difficult to detect. Where
termites pose a threat, standard preventive measures should be used
such as soil treatment or termite shields. At least one panel
manufacturer has incorporated borate into their expanded polystyrene
core as an insect repellent, but the effectiveness is not
well-documented to date. Apparently other foam materials are not as
receptive to treatment. "


Other integrity problems as well.

http://www.sipweb.com/2001-10_juneau.pdf


The houses built in Alaska were not errected correctly.

Correct. Correct erection implies not using those materials, and not
just wanking around.

The problems were
nothing to do with the SIP panles themselves. If you poorly errect any house
of any contruction you will have problems.

A Google will bring out the results of the Alaska failures.

....Any more tripe?

John Rumm wrote:

IMM wrote:


You are clearly a full mentalist.


Do you get paid for "ad words" like google? Find some dumb phrase for
the month, and see how often you can repeat it.

Or is just that English is your second language? Perhaps you are a
recent migrant to this country?

Joyn doesn't live in this country. He lives in Fairyland.

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:23:36 +0100, Another Dave
wrote:


IMM wrote:

That price is so vague it is not worth considering.



Let's remember what the OP asked:

"What is the cost of errecting a new traditionally built bog-standard
detached house with two to three bedrooms? I'm talking ball-park here."

Ball-park is what he asks for and that's what he got.


And I'm happy enough with it! That is not to say I don't welcome all
the other prices given, as I know that costs will vary greatly
depending on many factors. The reason I asked was that if the
underpinning turns out to have been botched, or it needs (will need)
underpinning again in five or ten years, or the house is damp or
because of a host of other reasons it is not a viable property long
term, it may be worth pulling it down and rebuilding, given that the
plot size is fairly generous.


In general its slightly cheaper to underpin a shell if the roof is
moderately intact rather than star again unless access or machinery is
serverely restricted: If the whole structure is rotten, derelict,
unlovely and needs underpinning then demolish and rebuild is not a bad
option.

However when you rebuild two things are worth considering

(i) Its a new house, and subject to the most up to date and stringent
building control. This you may regard as a blessing or a curse.

(ii) you get VAT back on materials only once the completion certificate
is signed.


MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Okay, here's the story. I am now considering a property in
Lincolnshire. This is a very, very old cottage, at least 150 years, I
reckon. The setting is isolated and idyllic. But I made some enquiries
from the agent, who told me that the building had been underpinned at
the rear some years ago. I have not yet visited the property.

Some questions:

Buildings of that era had no foundations, true?

Not none, just very shallow. Our house was extended four times (at least)
from 1600 to the present day so we can see the trend quite well.


Does underpinning cure, or postpone, a problem?

Just make sure the whole property was done or it could make things worse.



What is the cost of errecting a new traditionally built bog-standard
detached house with two to three bedrooms? I'm talking ball-park here.
Absolutely bog-standard, but well constructed, with cavity walls,
solid internal walls, at least downstairs, lots of insulation, quality
windows and doors, floorboards instead of chipboard. In effect, what
would the building cost be for a slighlty better than "council house"
design? £60,000? £80,000? This has to be for the finished habitable,
product.

£80k sounds right.



If house has stood anyway for 150 years, it's likely to remain for a
good few years yet, true?

Far longer than you'll be anyway. Note that you won't get permission to
demolish it if that is what you are thinking. First hint of an application
and it will be spot-listed.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Southampton FC, Leicester City FC and Wembley stadium will probably give
you
better figures. Wembley is costing more than all the stadia built by
Portugal for Euro 2004. Use that figure.

I'm not sure how the costs of building Wembley are relevent to the cost of
building a 2 storey residential house, even if done on the centre circle.

Christian.

How big is this ballpark?