I am getting ready to work on our stairway. When we purchased the place the
stairs were carpeted. We removed the carpet and plan on hard surface stairs.
The stringers up each side will be painted the trim color. I thought of
staining and varnishing the treads and risers. The only problem I have is
the turning point half way up. These transition treads are large triangles
made of fir plywood and I feel they will not look good finished like the
other solid fir treads. Should I change out the triangles with solid fir?
The long side on the triangles is about 4' Any other ideas? Other finishing
ideas?

Thanks,

cm

"cm" wrote in message
made of fir plywood and I feel they will not look good finished like the
other solid fir treads. Should I change out the triangles with solid fir?
The long side on the triangles is about 4' Any other ideas? Other
finishing
ideas?

Is there some noticeable difference between the fir treads? Or, are you
possibly thinking that the wider turning point treads won't stain the same?
Sorry, but I'm a little confused trying by your question.

Upscale,

I am afraid the finished plywood treads will look different next to the
finished solid treads.

THX,

cm
"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"cm" wrote in message
made of fir plywood and I feel they will not look good finished like the
other solid fir treads. Should I change out the triangles with solid fir?
The long side on the triangles is about 4' Any other ideas? Other
finishing
ideas?

Is there some noticeable difference between the fir treads? Or, are you
possibly thinking that the wider turning point treads won't stain the
same?
Sorry, but I'm a little confused trying by your question.

"cm" wrote in message
I am afraid the finished plywood treads will look different next to the
finished solid treads.

Considering that you've removed the carpet and are just going with bare wood
treads, you're probably right, either now or eventually. If the plywood
treads are veneered fir, then the veneer will probably wear away fairly
quickly due to traffic. If they're both just fir, one solid, one plywood,
I've never seen solid fir that looks exactly the same as firred plywood.

Whatever plywood you're using, mainly because it's layered, it will probably
show wear and tear much quicker than any solid wood. Apologies, maybe
someone else can come up with a constructive suggestion.

Upscale,

Good point on the wear. I'll look at replacing the plywood with solid or
topping all the treads with laminate or wood flooring.

Thanks again,

cm

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"cm" wrote in message
I am afraid the finished plywood treads will look different next to the
finished solid treads.

Considering that you've removed the carpet and are just going with bare
wood
treads, you're probably right, either now or eventually. If the plywood
treads are veneered fir, then the veneer will probably wear away fairly
quickly due to traffic. If they're both just fir, one solid, one plywood,
I've never seen solid fir that looks exactly the same as firred plywood.

Whatever plywood you're using, mainly because it's layered, it will
probably
show wear and tear much quicker than any solid wood. Apologies, maybe
someone else can come up with a constructive suggestion.

"cm" wrote

other solid fir treads. Should I change out the triangles with solid fir?
The long side on the triangles is about 4' Any other ideas? Other
finishing ideas?

It's called a "landing" ... I would remove the fir plywood from the landing
and replace with the same material as the treads (solid fir?), taking great
pains to insure they are the same thickness so that you don't cause
stumbling, then stain and finish with a polyurethane of your choice.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Nov 8, 9:22*am, "Swingman" wrote:

It's called a "landing" ... I would remove the fir plywood from the landing
and replace with the same material as the treads (solid fir?)

If you don't do that, it will never stand a chance at matching. Most
fir plywood is rotary cut veneer faced, giving your fir appearance a
totally different profile than a plain, flat cut board.

Unless you hand pick your fir boards for appearance, they won't match
much better. The old growth fir used many years ago was tight grained
stuff that was surprisingly hard for a soft wood. The growth rings
were nice and tight. Your challenge will be finding that tight ringed
stuff somewhere.

taking great
pains to insure they are the same thickness so that you don't cause
stumbling,

How important is that? It is really odd to me. Folks that are very
spatially challenged can go up stairs and pick out ONE riser that is
1/2" off. Weird. When I was learning to cut stairs, my boss would
scream at anything over 1/4". I didn't really understand for years
what a trip hazard a fraction of an inch could be.

then stain and finish with *a
polyurethane of your choice.

Hopefully some high resin, long oil finish that is made specifically
for floor duty. If you stain, don't forget the conditioner before
applying. Fir will let you know exactly what the definition of
"blotchy" should be.

Robert

wrote

"Swingman" wrote:

taking great
pains to insure they are the same thickness so that you don't cause
stumbling,

How important is that? It is really odd to me. Folks that are very
spatially challenged can go up stairs and pick out ONE riser that is
1/2" off. Weird. When I was learning to cut stairs, my boss would
scream at anything over 1/4". I didn't really understand for years
what a trip hazard a fraction of an inch could be.

Codes vary, but our local code requires no more than 3/8" variation from
tread to tread, and no greater than 3/4" variation from first step, to last
at finished floor above. Besides, I'm one of those who can tell immediately
if stairs don't comply, on the first trip up/down. A phenomenon apparently
attributed to "muscle memory".

And, like your boss at the time, I'm also one of those who raise holy hell
with framers/finish carpenters about this issue ... to the point of making a
spreadsheet and posting it on the unfinished stairwell noting any 'out of
code' variations and what must be done to correct them (Leon has probably
witnessed one of those "spreadsheets").

I've learned to pay the utmost attention to the issue during framing due to
the inherent sloppiness of the culture who builds houses, because an
otherwise perfectly built house will fail a building "final" and no COO can
be issued over something most consider minutiae (damned expensive to tear
out a finished stairwell in a new house); because of the ever looming
possibility of a future lawsuit; and mainly because I don't want anyone to
get hurt on a project for which I was responsible ... particularly an
unsuspecting child or elderly person.

Sad, but true ... a few years ago I mentioned to a cousin that she really
wanted to check her stairs because there a 1 7/8" difference from first step
to the landing above, a straight run, which I noticed the first night we
spent there. They were proud, first time general contractors on their own
home, there were no inspection requirements in the area which was
unincorporated at the time of construction, and she also did NOT want to
hear ANY criticism of *her* house, thank you very much!

Three years ago her elderly MIL fell and broke a hip coming down, and last
summer she, herself, did the same, breaking a leg bad enough to have surgery
to insert a pin.

I could tell by her attitude that she originally thought I was FOS ... sad
thing is, I doubt she will admit the issue to this day.

AAMOF, my youngest daughter spent last summer there as a guest while going
to summer school, and it was one of the things I cautioned her about ...
particularly when carrying anything in both arms on a trip down.

I attribute part of my fixation on this issue to age ... I definitely don't
need any broken parts while I'm responsible for pulling the wagon in these
troubled times.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:



wrote

"Swingman" wrote:

taking great
pains to insure they are the same thickness so that you don't cause
stumbling,

How important is that? It is really odd to me. Folks that are very
spatially challenged can go up stairs and pick out ONE riser that is
1/2" off. Weird. When I was learning to cut stairs, my boss would
scream at anything over 1/4". I didn't really understand for years
what a trip hazard a fraction of an inch could be.

Codes vary, but our local code requires no more than 3/8" variation from
tread to tread, and no greater than 3/4" variation from first step, to last
at finished floor above. Besides, I'm one of those who can tell immediately
if stairs don't comply, on the first trip up/down. A phenomenon apparently
attributed to "muscle memory".

And, like your boss at the time, I'm also one of those who raise holy hell
with framers/finish carpenters about this issue ... to the point of making a
spreadsheet and posting it on the unfinished stairwell noting any 'out of
code' variations and what must be done to correct them (Leon has probably
witnessed one of those "spreadsheets").

I've learned to pay the utmost attention to the issue during framing due to
the inherent sloppiness of the culture who builds houses, because an
otherwise perfectly built house will fail a building "final" and no COO can
be issued over something most consider minutiae (damned expensive to tear out
a finished stairwell in a new house); because of the ever looming
possibility of a future lawsuit; and mainly because I don't want anyone to
get hurt on a project for which I was responsible ... particularly an
unsuspecting child or elderly person.

Sad, but true ... a few years ago I mentioned to a cousin that she really
wanted to check her stairs because there a 1 7/8" difference from first step
to the landing above, a straight run, which I noticed the first night we
spent there. They were proud, first time general contractors on their own
home, there were no inspection requirements in the area which was
unincorporated at the time of construction, and she also did NOT want to hear
ANY criticism of her house, thank you very much!

Three years ago her elderly MIL fell and broke a hip coming down, and last
summer she, herself, did the same, breaking a leg bad enough to have surgery
to insert a pin.

I could tell by her attitude that she originally thought I was FOS ... sad
thing is, I doubt she will admit the issue to this day.

AAMOF, my youngest daughter spent last summer there as a guest while going to
summer school, and it was one of the things I cautioned her about ...
particularly when carrying anything in both arms on a trip down.

I attribute part of my fixation on this issue to age ... I definitely don't
need any broken parts while I'm responsible for pulling the wagon in these
troubled times.

In the uk if any stairs wer built that far out of spec they wouldnt be allowed
to be fitted .

When i did my apprenticeship if any treads or risers were more than 1/16" or
1.5mm out then you would have to remake the stringers and take a right
bollocking off the forman , this covered all types of stringers wether shop or
site made , same with plumb of the newel posts and when fitted the treads had
to have no more than 1/16" fall when the stairway was finished

--

"steve robinson" wrote

In the uk if any stairs wer built that far out of spec they wouldnt be
allowed
to be fitted .

When i did my apprenticeship if any treads or risers were more than 1/16"
or
1.5mm out then you would have to remake the stringers and take a right
bollocking off the forman , this covered all types of stringers wether
shop or
site made , same with plumb of the newel posts and when fitted the treads
had
to have no more than 1/16" fall when the stairway was finished

The reality of the situation is that I would be tickled to get a 1/16th, am
happy to get an 1/8th, insist on a 1/4, and often have to settle for the
code allowed 3/8th.

The framers, who in times passed when I was coming up worked to "an 1/8 in
8", now seem to think that "1/2 in 8" is something to shoot for, and which
they, more often than not, don't achieve.

For the most part, and last time I visited, there is still a good deal of
"pride of workmanship" in the UK.

Here we have to contend with an unbelievably insolent, total lack of same.

It is an appalling situation, but one quite indicative of a failing culture,
sorry to say.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Nov 8, 11:32*am, "Swingman" wrote:

Codes vary, but our local code requires no more than 3/8" variation from
tread to tread, and no greater than 3/4" variation from first step, to last
at finished floor above.

Same here. I personally think that's generous as hell, but there are
those around that think those tolerances are unreasonable. I always
think; "why aren't they ALL the same?"

Besides, I'm one of those who can tell immediately
if stairs don't comply, on the first trip up/down. A phenomenon apparently
attributed to "muscle memory".

I am that guy as well. I can go ass over teakettle when the staircase
constructors didn't allow for 1/2" pad with 50 oz plush carpet over it
when framing an exposed wooden tread staircase.

And, like your boss at the time, I'm also one of those who raise holy hell
with framers/finish carpenters about this issue ... to the point of making a
spreadsheet and posting it on the unfinished stairwell noting any 'out of
code' variations and what must be done to correct them (Leon has probably
witnessed one of those "spreadsheets"). *

Gawd, I got a belly laugh out of that one! A spreadsheet!?!?!?
Your guys must think you are some kind of math professor. ( "Uh,
yeah.... you know I hear Karl used to work for NASA... I think he was
one of them founder guys... but he was too damn smart for them pencil
necks so the drummed his ass out... that's how he wound up
contracting...)

LMAO!

I feel like our local workforce is in a much more rudimentary mode
most of the time. I have resorted to detailed sketches that are
dimensioned properly. With all the measurements on the sketch, I just
tell the guy "make your finished project look like this". I have gone
to the point of leaving instructions in plastic protective sleeves
attached to the walls.

I've learned to pay the utmost attention to the issue during framing due to
the inherent sloppiness of the culture who builds houses

I think that's the only way to do it. When I remodel, I am always
pleasantly surprised to see something done correctly. For the last 25
years, I follow the advice given to me by an old structural engineer:
build and design your projects around the lowest common denominator.

there were no inspection requirements in the area which was
unincorporated at the time of construction, and she also did NOT want to
hear ANY criticism of *her* house, thank you very much!

Strange, isn't it? For a while, I had the same phenomena in my
family. Just because you do this kind of work for a living doesn't
mean you know anything about it.

I attribute part of my fixation on this issue to age ... I definitely don't
need any broken parts while I'm responsible for pulling the wagon in these
troubled times.

I'm with you on that one. Even if the parts would heal OK, I don't
want to chance it for me and mine, or anyone else for that matter.

The sad thing to me is that (barring an actual mistake like a math
error) the thing I have never understood about something like building
stairs is that it is just as easy to build them correctly as it is
incorrectly. It's simple math.

With .99 calculators out there, even those that are numerically
challenged have the same shot as we did when we drew them out on a
piece of 1X12 before cutting. But still, those things seem to abound.

Like a balusters on a deck; 25 are spaced 4" apart, then the last one
has a 3" space. It doesn't bother me much if it is old construction
(I have other things to worry about) but if it is new construction and
the guy that did it is there, it bugs the hell out of me.

Worse, to hear the explanation to the client. "Well, we got it as
close as possible, but you know these things never work out exactly.
But we got it as close as we could".

After that, I am usually off to the truck to see if there is any
coffee left in the thermos.

Robert

wrote

Like a balusters on a deck; 25 are spaced 4" apart, then the last one
has a 3" space. It doesn't bother me much if it is old construction
(I have other things to worry about) but if it is new construction and
the guy that did it is there, it bugs the hell out of me.

Worse, to hear the explanation to the client. "Well, we got it as
close as possible, but you know these things never work out exactly.
But we got it as close as we could".

LOL ... or even worse, 4 1/4".

Inspector: "Sorry guys, gotta red tag this SOB ... a three month old baby
may crawl up here and stick it's little head between that baluster and
post!!"



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I live in Nashville, TN, and there has been a huge homebuilding boom in
the area and surrounding counties. The lack of craftsmanship is is both
embarrassing and disheartening. It has a lot to do with the sheer
quantity of building, coupled with the demand for fast turnaround.

You end up with fly-by-night crews, with lots of irresponsible,
unskilled, uncaring illegal and *and* legal laborers with no
accountability or pride in their work. The foreman ends up being the
first guy who speaks english and spanish who shows up 3 days in a row,
not high or hung-over.

With the sheer volume of construction, I am certain there is NO WAY
these houses are getting proper inspections. I'm equally certain that if
I chose to, I could make a very good living by just fixing other
people's mistakes. I already have a long, rather comedic, list of
problems I've repaired for friends.

One example was my friend's half million dollar house in which the
electrical outlets in one entire room weren't even wired. The outlets
were in the wall with the covers on, but no wiring in the wall. Same
house... subfloor plywood in living room just floating on the joists, no
glue, no nails, no screws. Add to that, some sheets were 3/4, some were
5/8.... someone had spread drywall mud on the seems to even it out.

I am not making this up, I swear.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Nov 8, 2:45*pm, -MIKE- wrote:

I live in Nashville, TN, and there has been a huge homebuilding boom in
the area and surrounding counties. The lack of craftsmanship is is both
embarrassing and disheartening. It has a lot to do with the sheer
quantity of building, coupled with the demand for fast turnaround.

It is an interesting philosophy problem when you start talking about
the facets of craftsmanship.

Of course, what you are describing is an outright screw job of some
poor client, no quality control, and outright fraud by the builder.
Poor workmanship is just a by product of a criminal builder.

Gauging the speed of delivery/time on the job/and hard cost - to -
craftsmanship ratio is a tough nut to crack.

I have two clients in my book that don't care what it costs to have me
on the job as long as they get exactly what they want. One owns
(outright!) a large chain of walk in med clinics, and the other is a
thoracic surgeon.

Quality is the object for them. Materials, finishes, workmanship, and
to some extent design as well are all in my purview. As long as I
deliver, they will pay the freight.

However, my bread and butter clients are not nearly as cognizant of
the perceived "old world craftsmanship ethic" or sometimes even plain
old quality. Most of the time, they are like us when we buy a tool;
they want the most for the least.

My client target is the one that tells me I wasn't the cheapest, but
they like my references (or work if they have seen it) so they are
signing a contract with me. They are willing to pay more to get more.

When you strike that balance, you have enough money in a project to do
a good job, stay in business and still have the ability to have pride
in your work.

Now, if you are following along where I am going, imagine this: Try
to find the folks that are already well trained and experienced, have
pride in their work, consistently show up, play well with the other
"craftsmen", and work inexpensively enough that you make consistent
money with them as employees.

My experience with employees is surprisingly not connected to money.
I pay top wage and expect good work. But my personal experience is
that most of the trades people (33+ years in the trades personally)
either make good employees or they don't.

Money, good treatment, bribes, or gifts for the family, won't keep
them if their traveling bone starts acting up. It will encourage
them to call you when they are back in town. I have guys that have
left on good terms that show up after being gone for a few years that
I will hire in a second if I need them.

I think construction/trades guys that aren't a product of the union
environment are gypsies by trade, and when things are going well they
feel like they could get a job anywhere. They're right. And when
they start following the building boom, look out.

Robert

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:32:52 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

Codes vary, but our local code requires no more than 3/8" variation from
tread to tread, and no greater than 3/4" variation from first step, to last
at finished floor above. Besides, I'm one of those who can tell immediately
if stairs don't comply, on the first trip up/down. A phenomenon apparently
attributed to "muscle memory".


Codes do vary but the municipalities we work in are using the
International Residential Codes for stairs. These changed some in
'06 and most framers were/are not aware of some of the changes.
The IRC requires a max of 7 3/4" rise (changed from 8") also the
"greatest riser height shall not exceed the smallest by more than
3/8". There is no exception for the top or bottom rise. This is
essentially a +/- 3/16" variance.
Lastly, the most common problem is the 2006 changes require a minimum
of 10" tread depth but that is now measured from nose to nose (not
riser to nose). This actually requires an 11" tread depth assuming
that you have a 1" nose overhang on the treads.
There are still a lot of stairs around here being framed with less
than a 10" run (11" tread) which are technically not legal.


Mike O.

wrote:

On Nov 8, 11:32Â*am, "Swingman" wrote:

Codes vary, but our local code requires no more than 3/8" variation from
tread to tread, and no greater than 3/4" variation from first step, to
last at finished floor above.

Same here. I personally think that's generous as hell, but there are
those around that think those tolerances are unreasonable. I always
think; "why aren't they ALL the same?"


If I ever have to build a house again, I want you are Swingman (or your
clones) doing it for me.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:

wrote:

On Nov 8, 11:32Â*am, "Swingman" wrote:

Codes vary, but our local code requires no more than 3/8" variation from
tread to tread, and no greater than 3/4" variation from first step, to
last at finished floor above.

Same here. I personally think that's generous as hell, but there are
those around that think those tolerances are unreasonable. I always
think; "why aren't they ALL the same?"


If I ever have to build a house again, I want you are Swingman (or your
clones) doing it for me.

Dang it! That was supposed to be "you OR Swingman"

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

If I ever have to build a house again, I want you are Swingman (or your
clones) doing it for me.


Swingman clones??

Is the world ready for this new development?

On Nov 8, 11:48*pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" *wrote

*If I ever have to build a house again, I want you are Swingman (or your
clones) doing it for me.

Swingman clones??

Is the world ready for this new development?

Yea.. the Fundy-Rights like the idea of owning a clone... as long as
it doesn't involve any real stem-cell research.. you know, the kind of
stuff that could actually heal people? There is no money in healthy
people. But actually 'owning' a clone is something that would appeal
to a neocon. That research was so inconveniently interrupted when
Bergen-Belsen was liberated. I guess the 'clone' statement was just a
Freudian slip.

Robatoy wrote:
Yea.. the Fundy-Rights like the idea of owning a clone... as long as
it doesn't involve any real stem-cell research.. you know, the kind of
stuff that could actually heal people?


Embryonic stem cell research has led to very little advance in the field
and very many dead ends.
Whereas Adult stem cell research has already produced therapies and
treatments successful for many years in areas such as spinal cord
injury, cancers including leukemia, Parkinson’s disease and others.

Regardless of the moral debate surrounding the issue, common sense leads
one to think it's wiser to focus research on areas that are already
producing promising results, rather than areas that have led nowhere.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Mike O." wrote

Lastly, the most common problem is the 2006 changes require a minimum
of 10" tread depth but that is now measured from nose to nose (not
riser to nose). This actually requires an 11" tread depth assuming
that you have a 1" nose overhang on the treads.
There are still a lot of stairs around here being framed with less
than a 10" run (11" tread) which are technically not legal.

Are you sure about your IRC dates? We were building stairs at a "minimum
tread depth" of 10" under IRC 2000 (granted, one of our local municipalities
changed it to 9 1/2", IIRC, but that was their change)

Just a builder, not a stair builder, so I could be suffering from advanced
CRS ... but I know a couple of local municipal building inspectors that I
think would be surprised also?

What say you?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

-MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Yea.. the Fundy-Rights like the idea of owning a clone... as long
as
it doesn't involve any real stem-cell research.. you know, the kind
of stuff that could actually heal people?


Embryonic stem cell research has led to very little advance in the
field and very many dead ends.

Uh, most research programs lead to very many dead ends. If that was
an a reason to not perform the research then we would not have
airplanes or electric lights.

Whereas Adult stem cell research has already produced therapies and
treatments successful for many years in areas such as spinal cord
injury,

When has a human spinal cord injury been effectively treated using any
product of "adult stem cell research"? They can partially repair a
rat using embryonic stem cells but that's a long way from treating a
human. The only information I can find about the use of stem cells in
the treatment of human spinal injuries is a statement that there
_might_ be a clinical trial using embryonic stem cells some time next
year.

cancers including leukemia,

You have that one backwards, knowledge of the existence of adult stem
cells came out of research into why bone marrow transplants were
effective in treating leukemia.

Parkinson’s disease

One person was treated, got better for a while, then his symptoms
returned. I find it telling that that experiment was not repeated.

and others.

Regardless of the moral debate surrounding the issue, common sense
leads one to think it's wiser to focus research on areas that are
already producing promising results, rather than areas that have led
nowhere.

Are we so poor as a nation that we cannot do both? The US spends less
than 5 percent of the Federal budget on scientific research and about
half of that is military research.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:02:45 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"steve robinson" wrote

In the uk if any stairs wer built that far out of spec they wouldnt be
allowed
to be fitted .

When i did my apprenticeship if any treads or risers were more than 1/16"
or
1.5mm out then you would have to remake the stringers and take a right
bollocking off the forman , this covered all types of stringers wether
shop or
site made , same with plumb of the newel posts and when fitted the treads
had
to have no more than 1/16" fall when the stairway was finished

The reality of the situation is that I would be tickled to get a 1/16th, am
happy to get an 1/8th, insist on a 1/4, and often have to settle for the
code allowed 3/8th.

The framers, who in times passed when I was coming up worked to "an 1/8 in
8", now seem to think that "1/2 in 8" is something to shoot for, and which
they, more often than not, don't achieve.

For the most part, and last time I visited, there is still a good deal of
"pride of workmanship" in the UK.

Here we have to contend with an unbelievably insolent, total lack of same.

It is an appalling situation, but one quite indicative of a failing culture,
sorry to say.


Let's not let the GC off too easily. Last week I installed three sets
of spiral stairs. Not one of the floor to floor measurements provided
by the GC was accurate. There was no blocking at the wall where my
rail rosettes were to be mounted. The landing was out of level in
two directions. The rock was bowed on the vertical face of the well
at the landing. The drywall inside corners were fat by 3/8" in the
well. There was no electricity within 100 feet of the work area.

Que lastima.



Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tom Watson wrote:

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:02:45 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"steve robinson" wrote

In the uk if any stairs wer built that far out of spec they wouldnt be
allowed
to be fitted .

When i did my apprenticeship if any treads or risers were more than 1/16"
or
1.5mm out then you would have to remake the stringers and take a right
bollocking off the forman , this covered all types of stringers wether
shop or
site made , same with plumb of the newel posts and when fitted the treads
had
to have no more than 1/16" fall when the stairway was finished

The reality of the situation is that I would be tickled to get a 1/16th, am
happy to get an 1/8th, insist on a 1/4, and often have to settle for the
code allowed 3/8th.

The framers, who in times passed when I was coming up worked to "an 1/8 in
8", now seem to think that "1/2 in 8" is something to shoot for, and which
they, more often than not, don't achieve.

For the most part, and last time I visited, there is still a good deal of
"pride of workmanship" in the UK.

Here we have to contend with an unbelievably insolent, total lack of same.

It is an appalling situation, but one quite indicative of a failing
culture, sorry to say.


Let's not let the GC off too easily. Last week I installed three sets
of spiral stairs. Not one of the floor to floor measurements provided
by the GC was accurate. There was no blocking at the wall where my
rail rosettes were to be mounted. The landing was out of level in
two directions. The rock was bowed on the vertical face of the well
at the landing. The drywall inside corners were fat by 3/8" in the
well. There was no electricity within 100 feet of the work area.

Que lastima.



Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/


Much of the problem lies with the clients unreasonable expectations of
completion times often exaserbated by designers not advising them otherwise
--

"Tom Watson" wrote
Let's not let the GC off too easily. Last week I installed three sets
of spiral stairs. Not one of the floor to floor measurements provided
by the GC was accurate. There was no blocking at the wall where my
rail rosettes were to be mounted. The landing was out of level in
two directions. The rock was bowed on the vertical face of the well
at the landing. The drywall inside corners were fat by 3/8" in the
well. There was no electricity within 100 feet of the work area.

Pretty well proves my point about framing "carpenters" these days, eh?.

As you well know, give-a-****s and lack of supervision during framing was
pretty much the underlying problem above ... and unskilled labor needs
*mucho* supervision, or your get what you gots.

These guys simply were never taught how to select the right tubafour from
the stack to do a particular job; will grab an obvious #3 from the pile and
use it; instead of a spec'ed #2 right next to it; or how best to deal with
vagaries in the material.

AAMOF, rare is the one, if asked, who could answer the question: "¿Qué
manera la corona va?".

.... incluso en español.

There's GC's, then there's GC's. Sounds like yours is one of those khaki
panted, blue shirted, fancy boys, propped up by speculators, and
*supervising* out of the Lexus?

BTW ... didja have a place to pee?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)






--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 10:03:53 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Tom Watson" wrote
Let's not let the GC off too easily. Last week I installed three sets
of spiral stairs. Not one of the floor to floor measurements provided
by the GC was accurate. There was no blocking at the wall where my
rail rosettes were to be mounted. The landing was out of level in
two directions. The rock was bowed on the vertical face of the well
at the landing. The drywall inside corners were fat by 3/8" in the
well. There was no electricity within 100 feet of the work area.

Pretty well proves my point about framing "carpenters" these days, eh?.

As you well know, give-a-****s and lack of supervision during framing was
pretty much the underlying problem above ... and unskilled labor needs
*mucho* supervision, or your get what you gots.

These guys simply were never taught how to select the right tubafour from
the stack to do a particular job; will grab an obvious #3 from the pile and
use it; instead of a spec'ed #2 right next to it; or how best to deal with
vagaries in the material.

AAMOF, rare is the one, if asked, who could answer the question: "¿Qué
manera la corona va?".

... incluso en español.

There's GC's, then there's GC's. Sounds like yours is one of those khaki
panted, blue shirted, fancy boys, propped up by speculators, and
*supervising* out of the Lexus?

BTW ... didja have a place to pee?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

My point is; at what point does the GC have to insist that the sub
tear out and put back to spec?

The dirt guy goes off spec and pushes it onto the mason who goes off
spec and puts it on the framer who goes off spec and puts it onto the
rocker who goes off spec and puts it onto the trimmer who goes off
spec and puts it onto the only true genius on the job - the man
finally responsible for making everything look good - THE PAINTER.

No wonder Old Speckles drinks so much.


It really goes back to the guy with the checkbook. He has to insist
on the quality level required and he has the biggest lever.




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Tom Watson" wrote

The dirt guy goes off spec and pushes it onto the mason who goes off
spec and puts it on the framer who goes off spec and puts it onto the
rocker who goes off spec and puts it onto the trimmer who goes off
spec and puts it onto the only true genius on the job - the man
finally responsible for making everything look good - THE PAINTER.

Yep... the painter wields the builder's secret weapon of the last quarter of
the 20th century:

"CAULK" ... it covers all sins.

... for a while.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:32:52 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:



wrote

"Swingman" wrote:

taking great
pains to insure they are the same thickness so that you don't cause
stumbling,

How important is that? It is really odd to me. Folks that are very
spatially challenged can go up stairs and pick out ONE riser that is
1/2" off. Weird. When I was learning to cut stairs, my boss would
scream at anything over 1/4". I didn't really understand for years
what a trip hazard a fraction of an inch could be.

Codes vary, but our local code requires no more than 3/8" variation from
tread to tread, and no greater than 3/4" variation from first step, to last
at finished floor above. Besides, I'm one of those who can tell immediately
if stairs don't comply, on the first trip up/down. A phenomenon apparently
attributed to "muscle memory".

And, like your boss at the time, I'm also one of those who raise holy hell
with framers/finish carpenters about this issue ... to the point of making a
spreadsheet and posting it on the unfinished stairwell noting any 'out of
code' variations and what must be done to correct them (Leon has probably
witnessed one of those "spreadsheets").

I've learned to pay the utmost attention to the issue during framing due to
the inherent sloppiness of the culture who builds houses, because an
otherwise perfectly built house will fail a building "final" and no COO can
be issued over something most consider minutiae (damned expensive to tear
out a finished stairwell in a new house); because of the ever looming
possibility of a future lawsuit; and mainly because I don't want anyone to
get hurt on a project for which I was responsible ... particularly an
unsuspecting child or elderly person.

Sad, but true ... a few years ago I mentioned to a cousin that she really
wanted to check her stairs because there a 1 7/8" difference from first step
to the landing above, a straight run, which I noticed the first night we
spent there. They were proud, first time general contractors on their own
home, there were no inspection requirements in the area which was
unincorporated at the time of construction, and she also did NOT want to
hear ANY criticism of *her* house, thank you very much!

Three years ago her elderly MIL fell and broke a hip coming down, and last
summer she, herself, did the same, breaking a leg bad enough to have surgery
to insert a pin.

I could tell by her attitude that she originally thought I was FOS ... sad
thing is, I doubt she will admit the issue to this day.

AAMOF, my youngest daughter spent last summer there as a guest while going
to summer school, and it was one of the things I cautioned her about ...
particularly when carrying anything in both arms on a trip down.

I attribute part of my fixation on this issue to age ... I definitely don't
need any broken parts while I'm responsible for pulling the wagon in these
troubled times.

....out here in SoCal there was a time when piece-work was the dominant
mode of framing...this was during the tract-house boom in the 60's and
70's. I came in right on the tail end of it and even in my nubile
state of skill development was sometimes amazed at what those guys got
away with...short-nailing was common, basically anything to make a
buck. Now, as a small contractor of the one-man-band ilk, I'm
reminded constantly of those times whenever I do remodeling...pretty
funny/sad. That said, I learned my lessons...one of them came from an
inspector who told me his "quick" inspection technique for stairs
(this is to determine whether he pulls his tape out or not): climb
the stair with your eyes closed.

cg

It appears that there are quite a few folks with knowledge of and
experience with building/re-building stairs.

I have a set in the house we purchased that are too steep for
comfort.

They go from the basement up to the first floor (or visa versa)
landing at the hallway running down the center of the first floor area
and about 5 feet from the basement wall. It turns out that the treads
are about 11" deep, but the rise varies a lot! The "landing" at the
basement is 10" above the concrete floor. The first step is ten inches
above the surface of the landing. The next couple of steps are about
8.75" above the preceding steps! Not at all what I expected!

No wonder they feel "weird."

At any rate, I need to rebuild them - once I remove a chimney they put
right at the wall in front of the basement "landing." which will give
me anther 22" of space to "stretch" the staircase (do you call it
"depth?"), albeit having a "landing" that runs right into a block wall
requiring one turn left or right to "enter" the basement once all the
way down.

Funny, one of the reasons I came to the "out lands" was to get away
from all those damned City/County "inspections" and permits and such
so I could build or add on as I pleased w/o "interference" and fees. I
spent about ninety dollars on materials to build a small fence on our
FL property. Folks would stop by and compliment us on the improvement.
Then the inspector came and demanded "plans" and a $55.00 "permit!"
OIy vey!

Now, I suffer from the lack of permits, plans and building inspections
that never would have "passed" these stairs! Can't win for losing.

At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to
proceed.

It appears that there are quite a few folks with knowledge of and
experience with building/re-building stairs.

I have a set in the house we purchased that are too steep for
comfort.

They go from the basement up to the first floor (or visa versa)
landing at the hallway running down the center of the first floor area
and about 5 feet from the basement wall. It turns out that the treads
are about 11" deep, but the rise varies a lot! The "landing" at the
basement is 10" above the concrete floor. The first step is ten inches
above the surface of the landing. The next couple of steps are about
8.75" above the preceding steps! Not at all what I expected!

No wonder they feel "weird."

At any rate, I need to rebuild them - once I remove a chimney they put
right at the wall in front of the basement "landing." which will give
me anther 22" of space to "stretch" the staircase (do you call it
"depth?"), albeit having a "landing" that runs right into a block wall
requiring one turn left or right to "enter" the basement once all the
way down.

Funny, one of the reasons I came to the "out lands" was to get away
from all those damned City/County "inspections" and permits and such
so I could build or add on as I pleased w/o "interference" and fees. I
spent about ninety dollars on materials to build a small fence on our
FL property. Folks would stop by and compliment us on the improvement.
Then the inspector came and demanded "plans" and a $55.00 "permit!"
OIy vey!

Now, I suffer from the lack of permits, plans and building inspections
that never would have "passed" these stairs! Can't win for losing.

At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to
proceed.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), Hoosierpopi
wrote:

It appears that there are quite a few folks with knowledge of and
experience with building/re-building stairs.

I have a set in the house we purchased that are too steep for
comfort.

They go from the basement up to the first floor (or visa versa)
landing at the hallway running down the center of the first floor area
and about 5 feet from the basement wall. It turns out that the treads
are about 11" deep, but the rise varies a lot! The "landing" at the
basement is 10" above the concrete floor. The first step is ten inches
above the surface of the landing. The next couple of steps are about
8.75" above the preceding steps! Not at all what I expected!

No wonder they feel "weird."

At any rate, I need to rebuild them - once I remove a chimney they put
right at the wall in front of the basement "landing." which will give
me anther 22" of space to "stretch" the staircase (do you call it
"depth?"), albeit having a "landing" that runs right into a block wall
requiring one turn left or right to "enter" the basement once all the
way down.

....you're referring to "run" in staircutter terms...your treads are
cut correctly for a 1" overhang leaving a 10" exposed tread (and if
you cut them square with no lip you'll gain run), your risers are way
out of whack. The extra run you'll get once the chimney is gone
should get you an extra couple of treads and that will bring your
risers into a more acceptable measurement.

Funny, one of the reasons I came to the "out lands" was to get away
from all those damned City/County "inspections" and permits and such
so I could build or add on as I pleased w/o "interference" and fees. I
spent about ninety dollars on materials to build a small fence on our
FL property. Folks would stop by and compliment us on the improvement.
Then the inspector came and demanded "plans" and a $55.00 "permit!"
OIy vey!

Now, I suffer from the lack of permits, plans and building inspections
that never would have "passed" these stairs! Can't win for losing.

....aw, what's a couple of projects, anyhow!?

cg

At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to
proceed.

"Hoosierpopi" wrote

At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to
proceed.

This a simple calculator that will give you some options to consider:

http://www.toptreadstairways.com/stair_calculator.html

Had an Excel spreadsheet version, but can't seem to find it. If can locate
it, I'll post a link to it on the website.

Also DAGS "stair calculator", as there are number of both free and pay
versions of stair calculators on the web.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 00:24:25 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Mike O." wrote

Lastly, the most common problem is the 2006 changes require a minimum
of 10" tread depth but that is now measured from nose to nose (not
riser to nose). This actually requires an 11" tread depth assuming
that you have a 1" nose overhang on the treads.
There are still a lot of stairs around here being framed with less
than a 10" run (11" tread) which are technically not legal.

Are you sure about your IRC dates? We were building stairs at a "minimum
tread depth" of 10" under IRC 2000 (granted, one of our local municipalities
changed it to 9 1/2", IIRC, but that was their change)

Just a builder, not a stair builder, so I could be suffering from advanced
CRS ... but I know a couple of local municipal building inspectors that I
think would be surprised also?

What say you?

Here's the visual interpretation of the 2006 IRC.
http://www.stairways.org/pdf/2006%20...C%20SCREEN.pdf
Page #5 I think.
As you can see, it says 10" but pay close attention to where they show
the measurements. My guess is that a lot of inspectors don't know
this.

Here's an alert for you....The visual interpretation of the 2000 IRC
is here.
http://www.arcways.com/pdfs/IRC2000a.pdf

While I thought some of these were changes from the 2000 version, I'm
having a hard time finding any differences between the two....


Mike O.

"Mike O." wrote

Lastly, the most common problem is the 2006 changes require a minimum
of 10" tread depth but that is now measured from nose to nose (not
riser to nose).

snip

Here's the visual interpretation of the 2006 IRC.
http://www.stairways.org/pdf/2006%20...C%20SCREEN.pdf
Page #5 I think.
As you can see, it says 10" but pay close attention to where they show
the measurements. My guess is that a lot of inspectors don't know
this.

I doubt that is correct, since that has been no change in the "minimum tread
depth" of 10", or the way it is measured, since at least IRC 2000:

IRC 2006:

R311.5.3.2 Tread depth.
The minimum tread depth shall be 10 inches (254 mm). The tread depth shall
be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost
projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading
edge.

IRC 2003:

R311.5.3.2 Tread depth.
The minimum tread depth shall be 10 inches (254 mm). The tread depth shall
be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost
projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading
edge.

IRC 2000:

R314.2 Treads and risers.
The maximum riser height shall be 7-3/4 inches (196 mm) and the minimum
tread depth shall be 10 inches (254 mm). The riser height shall be measured
vertically between leading edges of the adjacent treads. The tread depth
shall be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost
projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading
edge.

While I thought some of these were changes from the 2000 version, I'm
having a hard time finding any differences between the two....

That's because, as you can see above, there aren't any.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Thanks for all the info/education! I am may just install wood flooring over
what is there. If I stick with 3/8" thickness I will be within code.

Thanks again,

cm


"cm" wrote in message
...
I am getting ready to work on our stairway. When we purchased the place the
stairs were carpeted. We removed the carpet and plan on hard surface
stairs. The stringers up each side will be painted the trim color. I
thought of staining and varnishing the treads and risers. The only problem
I have is the turning point half way up. These transition treads are large
triangles made of fir plywood and I feel they will not look good finished
like the other solid fir treads. Should I change out the triangles with
solid fir? The long side on the triangles is about 4' Any other ideas?
Other finishing ideas?

Thanks,

cm

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 17:54:45 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Hoosierpopi" wrote

At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to
proceed.

This a simple calculator that will give you some options to consider:

http://www.toptreadstairways.com/stair_calculator.html

Had an Excel spreadsheet version, but can't seem to find it. If can locate
it, I'll post a link to it on the website.

Also DAGS "stair calculator", as there are number of both free and pay
versions of stair calculators on the web.

....the guy I learned from used a Mickey Mouse calculator...no
kidding...with ears! LOL...he knew the rise and the run and knew his
material thicknesses and the finish floor above...*I* went out and
bought a stair book!

cg

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:51:52 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

While I thought some of these were changes from the 2000 version, I'm
having a hard time finding any differences between the two....

That's because, as you can see above, there aren't any.

I agree that there aren't any changes.
The code really requires that you rip your treads at 11" minimum
(assuming you have a 1" nose) but I've never seen an inspector fail
a stair as long as the actual tread was ripped at 10".

Mike O.

"Mike O." wrote

While I thought some of these were changes from the 2000 version, I'm
having a hard time finding any differences between the two....

That's because, as you can see above, there aren't any.

I agree that there aren't any changes.
The code really requires that you rip your treads at 11" minimum
(assuming you have a 1" nose) but I've never seen an inspector fail
a stair as long as the actual tread was ripped at 10".

I agree. IME these days, most wooden residential treads seem to be purchased
"ready made" at 11 1/4" and the preponderance used as is. That might vary
from region to region, but it is certainly the case down here.

Then again, this is a large metropolitan area with almost every jurisdiction
therein heavily involved in "building standards" ... get out in the
unincorporated areas, which are almost non-existent for 50 miles in any
direction and you may well have a good bit of tread ripping to shoehorn a
stairwell.

The big issues here are minimum width of a winder tread (6"), and arguments
over the "walk line" when measuring same.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:45:21 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

The big issues here are minimum width of a winder tread (6"), and arguments
over the "walk line" when measuring same.


We've been down that road too.
We've seen some framed that did not meet either the 6" min or the 10"
at the walk line. Since the framing inspection is signed off before
we get there, they somehow passed.

There are a few things in the stair codes that I don't quite
understand.
Why is there a 4" sphere rule between balusters on a guardrail
(horizontal) and a 4 3/8" rule on open stairs?
Also they allow 6" sphere in the pie of the run and rise (if you run a
bottom rail) so why is that different than having a 6" space between
balusters?

Mike O.

"Swingman" wrote:


Pretty well proves my point about framing "carpenters" these days, eh?.

Fortunately, they aren't all like that. Leon, the guy that did the framing in
my last addition, seemed to work in thousandths. He is a Carpenter.
-- Doug