IMM wrote:

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

At this time. The Americans did not used to have fire ants, Hobo spiders
and a number of other pests, but they now do. I believed the uk didn't
have dangerous spiders, until my wife was bitten by a Hobo spider a few
weeks ago. Not recommended.
I would expect my local ant population to infest this type of
construction within 20 years and excavate some very large holes.

Regards
Capitol

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

We see far, far more of it in masonry houses with fully skilled people.

That is all it is - a selling point. The reality differs.

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

Depends on what went wrong. Replacing one wall panel is easy. Some can
be
patched up with OSB and foam injected.

Great for structural integrity.......

Ever seen a SIP? Of couse you haven't.

This is not necessarily a reason
not to use the technology, but the
suppliers should at least be honest
in their claims

They are honest. Not one has failed yet.
Only failures are due to shoddy
workmanship.

First of all, how would you know
whether or not there have been any
product defects? For there to have been
none is implausible.

None have come to the surface.

Secondly, the point was about the
technology as a whole - i.e. the
product and the installation.

Two mutually exclusive points. The product with its technology and the
installation (workmanship).

For a successful outcome, all elements
have to be in place and work correctly.

Same with any construction method.

Clearly it is possible to have a
bad outcome if there are installation
problems.

That has nothing to do with the product and the technology behind it.

- it is not all plain sailing.

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

It is possible for an installation
problem to result in a rotting
structure.

Same with any construction method. The Alaska failures were blantant
negligence.

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.

In know of whole areas thay were bulldozed.

and I already mentioned the
potential for infestations.

Which is not a point in the UK, and
will no longer be a point in the US.

Rodents and insects are present here.

Different types and far less of them.
The same problems exist for SIPs as
for timber frames.

Oh I see. Does the American accent
of U.S. rodents make them more
voracious?

Yep.

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

What isues are those?

Already covered.

You never covered any. You only highlighted shoddy workmanship.

Yes, and this is all part of the end result.
Materials and installation have to be
taken into account.

The point is the product, which seem to think is faulty by design. The
product is sound, very sound.

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

There are certainly some,
and when they arise, the implications are
substantial.

Name me the disadvantages?

Already covered at length.

You never, because you know little, if anything about SIPs. You make things
up.

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

Shoddy workmanship. A recent TV
consumer programme highlighted a whole
complex of brick built homes that required
the roofs be re-roofed. Why?
Shoddy workmanship.

Fine. So it is incorrect that SIPs
should be sold on the basis of
being idiotproof.

Where have you read that? Stop making things up.

They are subject to a bad outcome just like
anything else in the event of installation problems.

In terms of the end result and the implications of putting it right,
it doesn't matter whether it is the material or the way it is
installed. However, it is clearly not as idiot proof as the
manufacturers would like to claim.

It is idiot proof if you follow the instructions.

If something were as idiot proof
as the manufacturers claim, it would
not be a problem.

No highly skilled men are needed to erect them. The makers have never
said
"idiot proof". Just less skilled men working on them.

You're contradicting yourself.

I am not and I don't make things up.

Either you need skilled and trained people or you don't .

Trained with low skills. Simple.

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

Human nature can't be taken into account. As yet few panels failed even
to
shoddy workmanship. Only 90 in Alaska.

That was from a cursory glance. Undoubtedly there are plenty more
examples.

Not many at all.

It is not a major problem as few have
failed to shoddiness to the installed
base.

However, they should not then market
their product and technology as
idiot proof

They don't. They say unskiled men can
be trained up quickly in SIPs,
nothing else. Read the book I posted.

Clearly problems can still happen, so the assertion that unskilled
people can be quickly trained is somewhat exaggerated.

Not so. Training is required of course, built no 5 year apprenticeships. If
you knew how SIPs worked and were joined you would not say silly thing like
that.

You can't have it both ways.

You can. SIPs are near enough a panacea.

They may be for you.

Not for me for everyone.

It seems to me that there can
be all sorts of problems with quite
horrendous outcomes.

Tell me of all these horrendous problems? Please don't keep giving e.g's of
shoddy workmanship.

Follow the instructions and hey
presto a weather proof shell in a few days
so internal work can go on in the
winter and superinsulation and soundproofing
as standard for the resident. Brilliant.

All the manufacturer web sites
seem to agree with you as well.

That do just that. As do all independent test too. An the UK has a number of
SIP companies manufacturing the panels, which was not the case 3 years ago.

In the US finishing trades love them
as they have a small heater
in the place in the winter and they work
in comfort. Houses are completed
in quicko time. Selbuilders love em too for the same reasons.

I think that if I were selfbuilding a house,
I would want to take more
pride in it than implementing a strandboard
and foam prefab.

Does pride mean some baked clay (bricks), light blocks and the rest
Paramount boards? My oh my. The end result of SIPs is a house more solid
and robust than bricks. The SIP houses in Kobe all survived the earthquakes
with superficial damage while those around all fell down. You obviously
know nothing of construction. That is sad.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Yep. Have a look at a building site. Those are those things with mud
around them, you run from.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
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?

What is the first language of your third world?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:27:46 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


It doesn't matter whether the problem
was in the material, training for the installers,
lack of inspection or anything else.
Taken in total, the technology and its
implementation can and did fail

The technology never failed. Workmanship
did. You obviously can't tell the difference.

The technology *includes* the implementation.

It doesn't

Otherwise one could dream up all kinds of complicated materials that
require a lot of skill to use them, and when they fail say that it was
the workmanship.

If it is done right it is done right whether very high skill or very low
skill. Get it?

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

Then none is successful then.

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

You are attempting to rubbish the system and not doing a good a job.

However, demonstrably, poor execution
can lead to a poor outcome, so
they are not the panacea that you claim.

They are. they will be common in the UK very soon as many developers gear
up for them. I saw a number of homes in Milton Keynes built of SIPs go up
in days. Once the shell was up the tiles were put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation for the building boom.

As regards to structural integrity, huge chucks can be cut out of them. It
is common to cut out your own doors and windows using a large jig saw.

Some level of ability and
supervision is still required.

As with all construction. Many companies have assessed that they can have
more men checking a SIP house to ensure quality as they go up so quick. The
amount of men that can say put up x houses in 6 months is still far less
with SIPs even with more checkers.

and so does have potential disadvantages.

What might they be?

I think we've covered that.

You haven't as you don't know any.

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

I don't. I have visited a few of the SIP
homes in the UK. A number are
going up in Portsmouth right now.

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

The right one, the objective one. You
lack objectivity and go for tabloid
headlines, like the SIP failures in Alaska
headline. Sucked in hook line and sinker.

I think that really is the
pot calling the kettle black.

You sucked it in, hook line and sinker.

You are the one who has tried to
portray this technology as perfect.

Perfect? Superior, faster and cheaper, yes. Perfection is nearer the 100%
with SIPs as walls are 100% true and most of the hard work is done in a
factory under controlled conditions.

Demonstrably, it is not.

Stop guessing.

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

Shoddiness apart, what are these circumstances?

Those are the objective facts.

You don't know anything about SIPs, so how would you know the facts? Oh
read tabloid blurb of shock , horror because of poor workmanship.

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

Only in workmanship, which mutually exclusive to the product.

and the consumer should not be
so naive as to believe your claims that
the technology is simple to use when
clearly problems can happen.

It is simple to use, very simple. Follow the makers instructions that's all.
If you don't you have problems, as with any product you assemble.

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"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.

Wow another mentalist. Must be a a mentalist walking around with a name
like Clive.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
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.

But wrong and can send you down the garden path.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Old enough to be bulldozed.

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

I would send the bulldozers in.

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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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?

Appalling. Appalling, when you see what is available to resort to that crap
is appalling.

Do put in underfloor heating tho.

My God more appallingness.

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

And chinmeys and a real fire place.

Even worse!!!!

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

You built one very badly.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

More mentalism.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


IMM wrote:

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

At this time. The Americans did not used to have fire ants, Hobo spiders
and a number of other pests, but they now do. I believed the uk didn't
have dangerous spiders, until my wife was bitten by a Hobo spider a few
weeks ago. Not recommended.
I would expect my local ant population to infest this type of
construction within 20 years and excavate some very large holes.

Any figure to back this up? Or are you guessing again?

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
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,

If underpinning was done correctly, it will have been supervised by a
structural engineer and a certificate of satisfaction, or similar,
issued. You can ask to see it.

If it cant be found, or doesnt exist, you can get a structural engineer
to inspect the property on your behalf. He may make some recommendations
in various areas, and will/should comment on the existing underpinning,
(make him aware of it). Armed with this, you can make a decision. I have
bought houses that have been underpinned, that have needed underpinning,
and that have looked like they might need underpinning. None have
involved any big deal.

Damp is also generally not a big deal. Most surveyors will "find" some
damp in any older house, and most of the "specialist" firms who inspect
after the survey will confirm that a damp proof course is needed.

What you must remember is that these people generally dont find damp,
they merely find an electrical resistance with their machines which
suggests moisture. Where it comes from, and how, they generally have no
idea, but as surveyors are able to satisfy the lenders, and their
insurance companies, by recommending a specialist inspection, this is
what they do.

Whether there is serious damp or not is usually a moot point. If you are
going to walk away from a house with some damp, (or even knock them down
to rebuild), you will probably be walking away from a lot of houses.

--
Richard Faulkner

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


IMM wrote:

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

At this time. The Americans did not used to have fire ants, Hobo spiders
and a number of other pests, but they now do. I believed the uk didn't
have dangerous spiders, until my wife was bitten by a Hobo spider a few
weeks ago. Not recommended.
I would expect my local ant population to infest this type of
construction within 20 years and excavate some very large holes.

Regards
Capitol

From Kingspan:
The Insulation core and facings used in the manufacture of Kingspan TEK
Structural Insulated Panels resist attack by mould and microbial growth and
do not provide any food value to vermin.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:48:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
.. .


IMM wrote:

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

At this time. The Americans did not used to have fire ants, Hobo spiders
and a number of other pests, but they now do. I believed the uk didn't
have dangerous spiders, until my wife was bitten by a Hobo spider a few
weeks ago. Not recommended.
I would expect my local ant population to infest this type of
construction within 20 years and excavate some very large holes.

Regards
Capitol

From Kingspan:
The Insulation core and facings used in the manufacture of Kingspan TEK
Structural Insulated Panels resist attack by mould and microbial growth and
do not provide any food value to vermin.




Carefully worded, but does not say that it can't happen.

Rats chew cables and all sorts of other things that don't provide food
value.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:40:40 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:27:46 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


It doesn't matter whether the problem
was in the material, training for the installers,
lack of inspection or anything else.
Taken in total, the technology and its
implementation can and did fail

The technology never failed. Workmanship
did. You obviously can't tell the difference.

The technology *includes* the implementation.

It doesn't

Clearly it does.

Do you imagine that these products self erect?



Otherwise one could dream up all kinds of complicated materials that
require a lot of skill to use them, and when they fail say that it was
the workmanship.

If it is done right it is done right whether very high skill or very low
skill. Get it?

That simply doesn't correlate.

Either something is easy and can be done correctly by unskilled people
or it can't. For a design to be foolproof, it shouldn't be possible
to put it together incorrectly. Clearly in this case it is possible
because people have done it.

That doesn't make the material bad, per sec, just the claim that it
doesn't require some skill.



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

Then none is successful then.

I didn't say that either. I simply pointed out that implementation
is part of a successful technology.



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

You are attempting to rubbish the system and not doing a good a job.

I am not rubbishing anything. I am simply pointing out that it is
subject to problems if not used or inspected properly.

You, on the other hand, are attempting to paint a rosy picture of
something without any problems. I know that you have difficulty in
seeing things other than in black and white, so can understand that
you would have difficulty with the concept that things *can* have
problems.



However, demonstrably, poor execution
can lead to a poor outcome, so
they are not the panacea that you claim.

They are. they will be common in the UK very soon as many developers gear
up for them.

Really? I travel around a lot, and have yet to see more than one
development and a couple of self build places using this.

I saw a number of homes in Milton Keynes built of SIPs go up
in days.

Yet another reason not to live in Milton Keynes.


Once the shell was up the tiles were put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation for the building boom.

The question will then be whether people will buy these ticky-tacky
houses or prefer traditional masonry.


As regards to structural integrity, huge chucks can be cut out of them. It
is common to cut out your own doors and windows using a large jig saw.

I am sure that this needs to be properly planned out to ensure that
sufficient support for the roof remains in place.

If there is then damage to the structure as the result of damp or
vermin attack, this would be a question mark.



Some level of ability and
supervision is still required.

As with all construction. Many companies have assessed that they can have
more men checking a SIP house to ensure quality as they go up so quick. The
amount of men that can say put up x houses in 6 months is still far less
with SIPs even with more checkers.

Thrown together in other words. Not very impressive for the single
largest investment that most people will make.



and so does have potential disadvantages.

What might they be?

I think we've covered that.

You haven't as you don't know any.

We've covered that.....


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

I don't. I have visited a few of the SIP
homes in the UK. A number are
going up in Portsmouth right now.

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

The right one, the objective one. You
lack objectivity and go for tabloid
headlines, like the SIP failures in Alaska
headline. Sucked in hook line and sinker.

I think that really is the
pot calling the kettle black.

You sucked it in, hook line and sinker.

I simply looked for information. It was in the form of a paper from
an industry association and not hard to find.



You are the one who has tried to
portray this technology as perfect.

Perfect? Superior, faster and cheaper, yes. Perfection is nearer the 100%
with SIPs as walls are 100% true and most of the hard work is done in a
factory under controlled conditions.

Prefabs in other words.

We are only talking about OSB and foam here.

I don't think that the results are superior to masonry or traditional
timber construction at all - just faster and perhaps cheaper.

Whether that remains the case over the lifetime of the house is
another matter




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

Shoddiness apart, what are these circumstances?

Already discussed.



Those are the objective facts.

You don't know anything about SIPs, so how would you know the facts? Oh
read tabloid blurb of shock , horror because of poor workmanship.

The article that I posted was from the industry association.

It wasn't a tabloid (I know you have difficulty with knowing the
difference) and pointed out that there can be problems resulting from
poor installation.

In this case the implications were quite serious.



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

Only in workmanship, which mutually exclusive to the product.

Obviously. All that I have said is that the product and the
installation have to be taken into account in terms of the outcome.



and the consumer should not be
so naive as to believe your claims that
the technology is simple to use when
clearly problems can happen.

It is simple to use, very simple. Follow the makers instructions that's all.
If you don't you have problems, as with any product you assemble.

Fine. Clearly this wasn't done, and the results when unskilled
labour was used were poor and the cost of rectification high.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:48:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
.. .


IMM wrote:

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

At this time. The Americans did not used to have fire ants, Hobo
spiders
and a number of other pests, but they now do. I believed the uk didn't
have dangerous spiders, until my wife was bitten by a Hobo spider a few
weeks ago. Not recommended.
I would expect my local ant population to infest this type of
construction within 20 years and excavate some very large holes.

Regards
Capitol

From Kingspan:
The Insulation core and facings used in the manufacture of Kingspan TEK
Structural Insulated Panels resist attack by mould and microbial growth
and
do not provide any food value to vermin.

Carefully worded, but does not say that it can't happen.

Rats chew cables and all sorts of other things that don't provide food
value.

I know, like through solid blockwork too. The likelihood of vermin chewing
through a SIP panel is no less than chewing through blockwork.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:19:42 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



It. Follow the simple instruction. One selling point of SIPs is that
unskilled men can be easily trained up in them. No expensive hard to get
tradesmen.

Really? We just saw an example of what can go badly wrong when
people who are supposed to either have been skilled or trained (it
doesn't matter which) use the technology.

We see far, far more of it in masonry houses with fully skilled people.

That wouldn't be difficult - far more are built.


That is all it is - a selling point. The reality differs.

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

Depends on what went wrong. Replacing one wall panel is easy. Some can
be
patched up with OSB and foam injected.

Great for structural integrity.......

Ever seen a SIP? Of couse you haven't.

Of course I have. They are only foam and OSB, nothing magic.


This is not necessarily a reason
not to use the technology, but the
suppliers should at least be honest
in their claims

They are honest. Not one has failed yet.
Only failures are due to shoddy
workmanship.

First of all, how would you know
whether or not there have been any
product defects? For there to have been
none is implausible.

None have come to the surface.

Evidence?


Secondly, the point was about the
technology as a whole - i.e. the
product and the installation.

Two mutually exclusive points. The product with its technology and the
installation (workmanship).

They are not, because both aspects have to work to produce the final
result.



For a successful outcome, all elements
have to be in place and work correctly.

Same with any construction method.

Exactly. Nobody claims that for traditional masonry or timber
construction that unskilled labour can be used.

With this, the manufacturers, (and you through blind cut and paste)
are asserting that skill isn't required. This simply isn't true.


Clearly it is possible to have a
bad outcome if there are installation
problems.

That has nothing to do with the product and the technology behind it.

It does if the installation is not as straightforward as the makers
claim.



- it is not all plain sailing.

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

It is possible for an installation
problem to result in a rotting
structure.

Same with any construction method. The Alaska failures were blantant
negligence.

It doesn't matter. The manufacturers are claiming that unskilled
labour can be used and that the construction goes together easily.
It doesn't, because it is possible to make errors.

If it were such that it *can't* be put together wrongly, then the
unskilled labour claim would have some substance.



and I already mentioned the
potential for infestations.

Which is not a point in the UK, and
will no longer be a point in the US.

Rodents and insects are present here.

Different types and far less of them.
The same problems exist for SIPs as
for timber frames.

Oh I see. Does the American accent
of U.S. rodents make them more
voracious?

Yep.

That explains it all.

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

What isues are those?

Already covered.

You never covered any. You only highlighted shoddy workmanship.

Yes, and this is all part of the end result.
Materials and installation have to be
taken into account.

The point is the product, which seem to think is faulty by design. The
product is sound, very sound.

It's only as sound as the end result.

A piece of cardboard is sound in and of itself. Is it suitable for
house construction? In this climate, no.



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

There are certainly some,
and when they arise, the implications are
substantial.

Name me the disadvantages?

Already covered at length.

You never, because you know little, if anything about SIPs. You make things
up.

There's nothing to make up. I simply quoted an industry association
article to illustrate that this is not a technology without problems.

The "making up" is your blind belief that everything in the garden is
rosy.


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

Shoddy workmanship. A recent TV
consumer programme highlighted a whole
complex of brick built homes that required
the roofs be re-roofed. Why?
Shoddy workmanship.

Fine. So it is incorrect that SIPs
should be sold on the basis of
being idiotproof.

Where have you read that? Stop making things up.

Have another look at the manufacturer web sites where you sourced your
information in the first instance.



They are subject to a bad outcome just like
anything else in the event of installation problems.

In terms of the end result and the implications of putting it right,
it doesn't matter whether it is the material or the way it is
installed. However, it is clearly not as idiot proof as the
manufacturers would like to claim.

It is idiot proof if you follow the instructions.

If something were as idiot proof
as the manufacturers claim, it would
not be a problem.

No highly skilled men are needed to erect them. The makers have never
said
"idiot proof". Just less skilled men working on them.

You're contradicting yourself.

I am not and I don't make things up.

Look. Either they are idiot proof or they are not.

I've demonstrated that they are not.



Either you need skilled and trained people or you don't .

Trained with low skills. Simple.

The measure being?


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

Human nature can't be taken into account. As yet few panels failed even
to
shoddy workmanship. Only 90 in Alaska.

That was from a cursory glance. Undoubtedly there are plenty more
examples.

Not many at all.

... and you would know?



It is not a major problem as few have
failed to shoddiness to the installed
base.

However, they should not then market
their product and technology as
idiot proof

They don't. They say unskiled men can
be trained up quickly in SIPs,
nothing else. Read the book I posted.

Clearly problems can still happen, so the assertion that unskilled
people can be quickly trained is somewhat exaggerated.

Not so. Training is required of course, built no 5 year apprenticeships. If
you knew how SIPs worked and were joined you would not say silly thing like
that.

It isn't difficult to put panels together. However, clearly it is
possible to do so incorrectly.



You can't have it both ways.

You can. SIPs are near enough a panacea.

They may be for you.

Not for me for everyone.

I see. So according to you, people are going to flock after these
ticky-tacky houses and the prices will rocket?

In your dreams.


It seems to me that there can
be all sorts of problems with quite
horrendous outcomes.

Tell me of all these horrendous problems? Please don't keep giving e.g's of
shoddy workmanship.

That is the precise point. Poor workmanship can have horrendous
outcomes. I would call the need to replace a roof a pretty horrendous
outcome.



Follow the instructions and hey
presto a weather proof shell in a few days
so internal work can go on in the
winter and superinsulation and soundproofing
as standard for the resident. Brilliant.

All the manufacturer web sites
seem to agree with you as well.

That do just that. As do all independent test too. An the UK has a number of
SIP companies manufacturing the panels, which was not the case 3 years ago.

It doesn't alter the fact that installation is not as unskilled as
they would like to imply.



In the US finishing trades love them
as they have a small heater
in the place in the winter and they work
in comfort. Houses are completed
in quicko time. Selbuilders love em too for the same reasons.

I think that if I were selfbuilding a house,
I would want to take more
pride in it than implementing a strandboard
and foam prefab.

Does pride mean some baked clay (bricks), light blocks and the rest
Paramount boards? My oh my. The end result of SIPs is a house more solid
and robust than bricks.

For how long? We have a good idea of how long houses made from
traditional materials and methods will last.

The SIP houses in Kobe all survived the earthquakes
with superficial damage while those around all fell down.

We don't live in an earthquake zone. Obviously one uses flexible
materials where there is a risk of earthquake.

You obviously
know nothing of construction. That is sad.

You obviously know nothing of the applicability of materials and
construction to the location.
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:42:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
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.

But wrong and can send you down the garden path.


That's normally your skillset.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:44:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



I know, like through solid blockwork too. The likelihood of vermin chewing
through a SIP panel is no less than chewing through blockwork.


Yeah. Right.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:40:40 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:27:46 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


It doesn't matter whether the problem
was in the material, training for the installers,
lack of inspection or anything else.
Taken in total, the technology and its
implementation can and did fail

The technology never failed. Workmanship
did. You obviously can't tell the difference.

The technology *includes* the implementation.

It doesn't

Clearly it does.

Do you imagine that these products self erect?

My God! The "technology" is not in the erection. That is like saying a
bricklayers skills is "technology".

Otherwise one could dream up all kinds of complicated materials that
require a lot of skill to use them, and when they fail say that it was
the workmanship.

If it is done right it is done right whether very high skill or very low
skill. Get it?

That simply doesn't correlate.


If you comprehend something so simple you get therapy.

Either something is easy and can
be done correctly by unskilled people
or it can't.

They are not unskilled. They just don't need a 5 year apprenticeship.

For a design to be foolproof, it shouldn't be possible
to put it together incorrectly.

Like IKEA furtiture?

Clearly in this case it is possible
because people have done it.

As can be done with any construction method. SAIP panels just happen to be
the easiest method to get a highly sound and thermally insulated self
supporting highly rigid shell up.

That doesn't make the material
bad, per sec, just the claim that it
doesn't require some skill.

Now one is making that claim, this is in your narrow mind.

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

Then none is successful then.

I didn't say that either. I simply
pointed out that implementation
is part of a successful technology.

The technology and the skills to implement are mutually excusive.

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

You are attempting to rubbish the
system and not doing a good a job.

I am not rubbishing anything.

You are attempting to.

I am simply pointing out that it is
subject to problems if not used
or inspected properly.

Nonsense. You came in with a tabloid headline attempting to pass off poor
workmanship as in inherent problem of SIP design and the technology behind
the panels, implying that all SIPs will go the same way.

You, on the other hand, are attempting
to paint a rosy picture of
something without any problems.

There is no problem with SIPs as long as they are installed properly, then
no problems. The advantages are colossal compared to other methods in
construction (a quick weather tight shell) and the finished end product.

I know that you have difficulty in
seeing things other than in black
and white,

You are the one who blurbs tabloid headlines.

so can understand that
you would have difficulty with the
concept that things *can* have
problems.

Not if installed correctly, which is an easy thing to do with SIPs.

However, demonstrably, poor execution
can lead to a poor outcome, so
they are not the panacea that you claim.

They are. they will be common in the UK
very soon as many developers gear
up for them.

Really?

Yep.

I travel around a lot, and have yet to see more than one
development and a couple of self build places using this.

You do not go on construction site and know frig all about SIPS. Stop
making things up.

I saw a number of homes in Milton Keynes
built of SIPs go up in days.

Yet another reason not to live in Milton Keynes.

The good people of Milton Keynes, this advanced lookahead city, would drive
the likes of you out of town.

Once the shell was up the tiles were
put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were
built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation
for the building boom.

The question will then be whether people
will buy these ticky-tacky
houses or prefer traditional masonry.

These houses are super solid and people are flocking to them. One last
winter never even had its heating system on. The systems were put in just
in case.

As regards to structural integrity, huge
chucks can be cut out of them. It
is common to cut out your own doors and
windows using a large jig saw.

I am sure that this needs to be
properly planned out to ensure that
sufficient support for the roof remains
in place.

They have a table for this sort of thing.

If there is then damage to the structure
as the result of damp or
vermin attack, this would be a question
mark.

A question mark one what? Vermin attack can happen to any construction
material, less likely with SIPs are the foam is impregnated..


snip babbling drivel from a Little Middle England mentalist who lacks
comprehension

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:44:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

I know, like through solid blockwork too. The likelihood of vermin
chewing
through a SIP panel is no less than chewing through blockwork.

Yeah. Right.

Year right. Rats and mice chewing through blockwork and getting under the
floorboards is common. They chew through the air vents, up they cavities and
through the blockwork. Your knowledge of construction is lacking.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:42:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
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.

But wrong and can send you down the garden path.


That's normally your skillset.

keep reading the tabloids.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:09:17 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:44:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

I know, like through solid blockwork too. The likelihood of vermin
chewing
through a SIP panel is no less than chewing through blockwork.

Yeah. Right.

Year right. Rats and mice chewing through blockwork and getting under the
floorboards is common. They chew through the air vents, up they cavities and
through the blockwork. Your knowledge of construction is lacking.

Evidence?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

How big is this ballpark?

Considerably larger than the plot taken by the house, so irrelevent.

Christian.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:19:42 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



It. Follow the simple instruction. One selling point of SIPs is that
unskilled men can be easily trained up in them. No expensive hard to
get
tradesmen.

Really? We just saw an example of what can go badly wrong when
people who are supposed to either have been skilled or trained (it
doesn't matter which) use the technology.

We see far, far more of it in masonry houses with fully skilled people.

That wouldn't be difficult - far more are built.

Far more in percentage terms too, and all fully skilled tradesmen too.

That is all it is - a selling point. The reality differs.

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

Depends on what went wrong. Replacing one wall panel is easy. Some
can
be
patched up with OSB and foam injected.

Great for structural integrity.......

Ever seen a SIP? Of couse you haven't.

Of course I have. They are only foam and OSB, nothing magic.

You have only seen pictures on the web from web site I gave. Don't make
things up.

For a successful outcome, all elements
have to be in place and work correctly.

Same with any construction method.

Exactly. Nobody claims that for traditional masonry or timber
construction that unskilled labour can be used.

No one is claiming that with SIPs.

With this, the manufacturers, (and you through blind cut and paste)
are asserting that skill isn't required. This simply isn't true.

I, and the makers, are saying no such thing.

- it is not all plain sailing.

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

It is possible for an installation
problem to result in a rotting
structure.

Same with any construction method. The Alaska failures were blantant
negligence.

It doesn't matter. The manufacturers are
claiming that unskilled labour can be used

They are not. they say that unskilled people can be trained up very quickly
on them. There are courses on how to erect them.

and that the construction goes together easily.
It doesn't,

It does go together easily.

because it is possible to make errors.

Only if you are a cowboy.

If it were such that it *can't* be put together wrongly, then the
unskilled labour claim would have some substance.

No one makes such a cliam.

snip the narrow minded babble of a mentalist

The mentalist goes on...

Does pride mean some baked clay
(bricks), light blocks and the rest
Paramount boards? My oh my. The
end result of SIPs is a house more solid
and robust than bricks.

For how long?

For ever. The oldest wooden structure in the UK is from the 11th century.

We have a good idea of how long houses made from
traditional materials and methods will last.

These will outlast them. Traditional materials? Blocks are pretty as are
paramount boards. they make up a large part of a "traditional" house.

The SIP houses in Kobe all survived
the earthquakes with superficial damage
while those around all fell down.

We don't live in an earthquake zone.

Your focus is poor. You have said SIPs are ticky tacky, when the opposite is
true. You have never been in a SIP house.

Obviously one uses flexible
materials where there is a risk of earthquake.

Do you? Well SIP homes are taking off like wildfire in Japan.

You obviously know nothing of
construction. That is sad.

You obviously know nothing of the
applicability of materials and
construction to the location.

You obviously know nothing of construction, so stop making things up.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:09:17 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:44:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

I know, like through solid blockwork too. The likelihood of vermin
chewing
through a SIP panel is no less than chewing through blockwork.

Yeah. Right.

Year right. Rats and mice chewing through blockwork and getting under the
floorboards is common. They chew through the air vents, up they cavities
and
through the blockwork. Your knowledge of construction is lacking.

Evidence?

The rats and mice under the floor.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

How big is this ballpark?

Considerably larger than the plot taken by the house, so irrelevent.

he wants figures for a ballpark, so it must be a big house.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:06:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




My God! The "technology" is not in the erection. That is like saying a
bricklayers skills is "technology".

Together with the bricks, it is.



Otherwise one could dream up all kinds of complicated materials that
require a lot of skill to use them, and when they fail say that it was
the workmanship.

If it is done right it is done right whether very high skill or very low
skill. Get it?

That simply doesn't correlate.


If you comprehend something so simple you get therapy.

I have no need of therapy.

Have you ever tought about English lessons, at all?


Either something is easy and can
be done correctly by unskilled people
or it can't.

They are not unskilled. They just don't need a 5 year apprenticeship.

I see. So which is it? Skilled or not?



For a design to be foolproof, it shouldn't be possible
to put it together incorrectly.

Like IKEA furtiture?

If something is billed as being suitable for unskilled assempbly, yes.



Clearly in this case it is possible
because people have done it.

As can be done with any construction method. SAIP panels just happen to be
the easiest method to get a highly sound and thermally insulated self
supporting highly rigid shell up.

Easiest for who? If it really was easy, there would not have been
the problems that were seen in Alaska.
If you read the report, you would learn that all sorts of things can
go wrong.



That doesn't make the material
bad, per sec, just the claim that it
doesn't require some skill.

Now one is making that claim, this is in your narrow mind.

Just look at most of the U.S. manufacturer web sites.


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

Then none is successful then.

I didn't say that either. I simply
pointed out that implementation
is part of a successful technology.

The technology and the skills to implement are mutually excusive.

In terms of the outcome, both are required.



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

You are attempting to rubbish the
system and not doing a good a job.

I am not rubbishing anything.

You are attempting to.

Nope. I am simply applying some perspective.



I am simply pointing out that it is
subject to problems if not used
or inspected properly.

Nonsense. You came in with a tabloid headline attempting to pass off poor
workmanship as in inherent problem of SIP design and the technology behind
the panels, implying that all SIPs will go the same way.

The article was published by an industry association.

In fact it does cite some manufacturing defects and tolerance issues,
but mainly it points out that construction is not unskilled.



You, on the other hand, are attempting
to paint a rosy picture of
something without any problems.

There is no problem with SIPs as long as they are installed properly, then
no problems. The advantages are colossal compared to other methods in
construction (a quick weather tight shell) and the finished end product.

Go and read the article. It indicates that there are a whole bunch
of issues ranging from manufacturing to design and engineering to
installation where a tightening up in the industry is clearly
required.

This is in the U.S. where this technology has been in use for years.

You are advocating its use in the UK. Is the training and inspection
infrastructure in place, and the skills to design? Is it validated
for long term use in our climate?
Are the manufacturers and builders willing to offer a long and fully
remedial guarantee?




so can understand that
you would have difficulty with the
concept that things *can* have
problems.

Not if installed correctly, which is an easy thing to do with SIPs.

So why did the construction people run into trouble in Alaska?




I travel around a lot, and have yet to see more than one
development and a couple of self build places using this.

You do not go on construction site and know frig all about SIPS. Stop
making things up.

I don't think that one needs to actually step onto a site to see
houses being thrown up from OSB panels........




I saw a number of homes in Milton Keynes
built of SIPs go up in days.

Yet another reason not to live in Milton Keynes.

The good people of Milton Keynes, this advanced lookahead city, would drive
the likes of you out of town.

ROTFL.


Once the shell was up the tiles were
put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were
built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation
for the building boom.

The question will then be whether people
will buy these ticky-tacky
houses or prefer traditional masonry.

These houses are super solid and people are flocking to them. One last
winter never even had its heating system on. The systems were put in just
in case.

Are they? Where?


As regards to structural integrity, huge
chucks can be cut out of them. It
is common to cut out your own doors and
windows using a large jig saw.

I am sure that this needs to be
properly planned out to ensure that
sufficient support for the roof remains
in place.

They have a table for this sort of thing.

That's something. Does it have allowances by size of rat?


If there is then damage to the structure
as the result of damp or
vermin attack, this would be a question
mark.

A question mark one what? Vermin attack can happen to any construction
material, less likely with SIPs are the foam is impregnated..

So rats eat bricks now?



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Considerably larger than the plot taken by the house, so irrelevent.

he wants figures for a ballpark, so it must be a big house.

He didn't mention using the entire ball park. If he'd asked for an estate
location figure, you wouldn't charge him for the entire estate, just the
normal plot size.

Christian.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:27:36 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Really? We just saw an example of what can go badly wrong when
people who are supposed to either have been skilled or trained (it
doesn't matter which) use the technology.

We see far, far more of it in masonry houses with fully skilled people.

That wouldn't be difficult - far more are built.

Far more in percentage terms too, and all fully skilled tradesmen too.

Evidence?


That is all it is - a selling point. The reality differs.

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

Depends on what went wrong. Replacing one wall panel is easy. Some
can
be
patched up with OSB and foam injected.

Great for structural integrity.......

Ever seen a SIP? Of couse you haven't.

Of course I have. They are only foam and OSB, nothing magic.

You have only seen pictures on the web from web site I gave. Don't make
things up.


Nope.

For a successful outcome, all elements
have to be in place and work correctly.

Same with any construction method.

Exactly. Nobody claims that for traditional masonry or timber
construction that unskilled labour can be used.

No one is claiming that with SIPs.

Look at US manufacturer web sites.




They are not. they say that unskilled people can be trained up very quickly
on them. There are courses on how to erect them.

Clearly there can still be problems.



and that the construction goes together easily.
It doesn't,

It does go together easily.

So how come there were cases of several dozen houses with leaking
roofs and mushrooms growing through?


Does pride mean some baked clay
(bricks), light blocks and the rest
Paramount boards? My oh my. The
end result of SIPs is a house more solid
and robust than bricks.

For how long?

For ever. The oldest wooden structure in the UK is from the 11th century.

Yes, but it is not reasonable to compare something constructed
properly from hardwoods using skilled craftsmen with something made
from manufactured board and foam thrown together by unskilled labour.


We have a good idea of how long houses made from
traditional materials and methods will last.

These will outlast them. Traditional materials? Blocks are pretty as are
paramount boards. they make up a large part of a "traditional" house.

How do you know? How does anybody know?

This was said about the concrete tower blocks - a marvel of modern
technology. Now look at them.


The SIP houses in Kobe all survived
the earthquakes with superficial damage
while those around all fell down.

We don't live in an earthquake zone.

Your focus is poor. You have said SIPs are ticky tacky, when the opposite is
true. You have never been in a SIP house.

Actually I have, in the U.S.


Obviously one uses flexible
materials where there is a risk of earthquake.

Do you? Well SIP homes are taking off like wildfire in Japan.

Do they burn as well? :-)


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Considerably larger than the plot taken by the house, so irrelevent.

he wants figures for a ballpark, so it must be a big house.

He didn't mention using the entire ball park.

Just the centre circle?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

You have only seen pictures on the web from web site I gave. Don't make
things up.

Nope.

Sop making things up.

For a successful outcome, all elements
have to be in place and work correctly.

Same with any construction method.

Exactly. Nobody claims that for traditional masonry or timber
construction that unskilled labour can be used.

No one is claiming that with SIPs.

Look at US manufacturer web sites.

No one says unskilled unfamiliar labour is suitable.

Does pride mean some baked clay
(bricks), light blocks and the rest
Paramount boards? My oh my. The
end result of SIPs is a house more solid
and robust than bricks.

For how long?

For ever. The oldest wooden structure
in the UK is from the 11th century.

Yes, but it is not reasonable to
compare something constructed
properly from hardwoods

It is.

We have a good idea of how long houses made from
traditional materials and methods will last.

These will outlast them. Traditional materials? Blocks are pretty as are
paramount boards. they make up a large part of a "traditional" house.

How do you know? How does anybody know?

There are millions of SIP homes in north American in climates similar to
ours with vermin more prone to attack if, it attacks it at all. They are
all brilliant and have been there for decades.

This was said about the concrete tower blocks - a marvel of modern
technology. Now look at them.

All built with traditional masonry.

The SIP houses in Kobe all survived
the earthquakes with superficial damage
while those around all fell down.

We don't live in an earthquake zone.

Your focus is poor. You have said SIPs
are ticky tacky, when the opposite is
true. You have never been in a SIP house.

Actually I have, in the U.S.

Stop making things up.

Obviously one uses flexible
materials where there is a risk of earthquake.

Do you? Well SIP homes are taking off like wildfire in Japan.

Do they burn as well? :-)

That is another point. They resist fire too. Well spotted.

He didn't mention using the entire ball park.

Just the centre circle?

The penalty area should be enough for most people, giving enough for a
reasonable sized garden.

Christian.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:02:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


There are millions of SIP homes in north American in climates similar to
ours with vermin more prone to attack if, it attacks it at all. They are
all brilliant and have been there for decades.

Really? Without exception? Like the ones in Juneau?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:06:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

My God! The "technology" is not in the erection. That is like saying a
bricklayers skills is "technology".

Together with the bricks, it is.

It isn't.

I have no need of therapy.

Most people who need it never think they do. Your private health insurance
can pay for it.

Have you ever tought about English lessons, at all?

I could give you some.

As can be done with any construction method.
SIP panels just happen to be
the easiest method to get a highly sound
and thermally insulated self
supporting highly rigid shell up.

Easiest for who?

Icky the Firebobby, that's who.

The technology and the skills to implement are mutually excusive.

In terms of the outcome, both are required.

Still mutually excusive.

I am simply pointing out that it is
subject to problems if not used
or inspected properly.

Nonsense. You came in with a tabloid headline attempting to pass off poor
workmanship as in inherent problem of SIP design and the technology
behind
the panels, implying that all SIPs will go the same way.

The article was published by an industry association.

In fact it does cite some manufacturing defects and tolerance issues,
but mainly it points out that construction is not unskilled.

Like the skilled labour we have in the UK construction industry that build
the worst tack in the western world.

There is no problem with SIPs as long as they are installed properly,
then
no problems. The advantages are colossal compared to other methods in
construction (a quick weather tight shell) and the finished end product.

Go and read the article. It indicates that there are a whole bunch
of issues ranging from manufacturing to design and engineering to
installation where a tightening up in the industry is clearly
required.

The official report clearly went down on workmanship.

You are advocating its use in the UK.
Is the training and inspection
infrastructure in place, and the skills to design?

Yes. Just not scaled up yet.

Is it validated for long term use in our climate?

Yep. NHBC will guarantee them.

Are the manufacturers and builders willing
to offer a long and fully
remedial guarantee?

NHBC will guarantee them.

Not if installed correctly, which is an easy thing to do with SIPs.

So why did the construction people run into trouble in Alaska?

Cowboys. They left out joining splines, etc, etc.

I travel around a lot, and have yet to see more than one
development and a couple of self build places using this.

You do not go on construction site and know frig all about SIPS. Stop
making things up.

I don't think that one needs to actually step onto a site to see
houses being thrown up from OSB panels........

You do. Amnd stop making things up.

I saw a number of homes in Milton Keynes
built of SIPs go up in days.

Yet another reason not to live in Milton Keynes.

The good people of Milton Keynes, this
advanced lookahead city, would drive
the likes of you out of town.

ROTFL.

And they would ROTFL as they did it.

Once the shell was up the tiles were
put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were
built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation
for the building boom.

The question will then be whether people
will buy these ticky-tacky
houses or prefer traditional masonry.

These houses are super solid and people are flocking to them. One last
winter never even had its heating system on. The systems were put in
just
in case.

Are they? Where?

I told you where.

If there is then damage to the structure
as the result of damp or
vermin attack, this would be a question
mark.

A question mark one what? Vermin attack can happen to any construction
material, less likely with SIPs as the foam is impregnated..

So rats eat bricks now?

They go through block and houses are made of that stuff. The block holds up
the house, the brick is a facade to kid people it is "solid", which is
bunkum. A "traditional" British house is noisy as sound suppression is near
zero. There is none in the floors. A SIP floor keeps sound away very well.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:02:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


There are millions of SIP homes in north American in climates similar to
ours with vermin more prone to attack if, it attacks it at all. They are
all brilliant and have been there for decades.

Really? Without exception? Like the ones in Juneau?

This is a classic case of mentalism taking hold. This is sad to see in front
of your very eyes.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:18:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:06:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

My God! The "technology" is not in the erection. That is like saying a
bricklayers skills is "technology".

Together with the bricks, it is.

It isn't.

He's behind you.




As can be done with any construction method.
SIP panels just happen to be
the easiest method to get a highly sound
and thermally insulated self
supporting highly rigid shell up.

Easiest for who?

Icky the Firebobby, that's who.

I see.


The technology and the skills to implement are mutually excusive.

In terms of the outcome, both are required.

Still mutually excusive.

If you read the Juneau article, both product and installation issues
are mentioned.

From the standpoint of the customer, the result was still a failure.


I am simply pointing out that it is
subject to problems if not used
or inspected properly.

Nonsense. You came in with a tabloid headline attempting to pass off poor
workmanship as in inherent problem of SIP design and the technology
behind
the panels, implying that all SIPs will go the same way.

The article was published by an industry association.

In fact it does cite some manufacturing defects and tolerance issues,
but mainly it points out that construction is not unskilled.

Like the skilled labour we have in the UK construction industry that build
the worst tack in the western world.

Well I'm not sure about that, but if the situation is really that bad,
it would seem imprudent to foist a new technology on them.




There is no problem with SIPs as long as they are installed properly,
then
no problems. The advantages are colossal compared to other methods in
construction (a quick weather tight shell) and the finished end product.

Go and read the article. It indicates that there are a whole bunch
of issues ranging from manufacturing to design and engineering to
installation where a tightening up in the industry is clearly
required.

The official report clearly went down on workmanship.

Manufacturing defects and tolerances were also mentioned.


You are advocating its use in the UK.
Is the training and inspection
infrastructure in place, and the skills to design?

Yes. Just not scaled up yet.

Is it validated for long term use in our climate?

Yep. NHBC will guarantee them.

... and this has a lot of value?





Are the manufacturers and builders willing
to offer a long and fully
remedial guarantee?

NHBC will guarantee them.

Not if installed correctly, which is an easy thing to do with SIPs.

So why did the construction people run into trouble in Alaska?

Cowboys. They left out joining splines, etc, etc.

So why did the pieces fit together without?


..

Once the shell was up the tiles were
put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were
built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation
for the building boom.

The question will then be whether people
will buy these ticky-tacky
houses or prefer traditional masonry.

These houses are super solid and people are flocking to them. One last
winter never even had its heating system on. The systems were put in
just
in case.

Are they? Where?

I told you where.

Oh *there*. I wouldn't want to go *there*.


If there is then damage to the structure
as the result of damp or
vermin attack, this would be a question
mark.

A question mark one what? Vermin attack can happen to any construction
material, less likely with SIPs as the foam is impregnated..

So rats eat bricks now?

They go through block and houses are made of that stuff. The block holds up
the house, the brick is a facade to kid people it is "solid", which is
bunkum.

Seems to have worked pretty well for several thousand years....



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:21:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:02:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


There are millions of SIP homes in north American in climates similar to
ours with vermin more prone to attack if, it attacks it at all. They are
all brilliant and have been there for decades.

Really? Without exception? Like the ones in Juneau?

This is a classic case of mentalism taking hold. This is sad to see in front
of your very eyes.

What's next month's catchphrase going to be?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:18:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:06:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

My God! The "technology" is not in the erection. That is like saying
a
bricklayers skills is "technology".

Together with the bricks, it is.

It isn't.

snip drivel from a mentalist who continually defends cowboys