Costs?
Costs?
kevlarcorolla wrote: In reply to frenchyd: We also changed tactics,trouble is that glue is spec'd and provided by the SIP manufacture so deleting it completely means not meeting the engineering requirements for assembly. We resorted to 3 big globs per each end of each panel,reduced the effort to pull/pound together enough to make it just bearable.Also made a pass with the power planer on each panel spline to reduce the effort as well. I still don't want to build anything else with SIP panels.....
You are correct.. I wrote that paragraph wrong. I did not mean to say I stopped using the required glue in the method shown by the manufacturer, rather that instead of banging the panels together I used blocks of wood and bar clamps to join the panels.. While it added time it did ensure that each panel was fully and properly in contact with it's neighbor unlike my earlier attempts with sledge then deadblow hammers.
As for the splines furnished. Careful measurement showed them to be 3/16" too wide so I returned them all and made my own on the table saw. My panel supplier made very good panels. I've seen the foam project from some companies panels too much on one side and not enough on another.. or the wood skewed. All of which makes assembly very hard or impossible..
stroker wrote: Costs?
Don't use my costs! I bought my panels in 2001 and I was able to get them direct from the manufacturer at contractor prices even though I'm a hobbyist.. In addition there was no delivery charge since the plant was only 14 miles from my home and I hauled them all home myself using either my pickup or the companies flatbed.
I do know that the number of panels effects the price and delivery costs..
However pricing the cost of panels back then they were less than what a stick framed wall with insulation would cost while being 200% stronger than a stick built wall. In addition they are massively more effective as insulation..
Fiberglas insulation has a rating it simply doesn't deserve.. As you know fiberglass is used in furnace filters because it doesn't impede the flow of air.. used in a wall panel air flows freely within the wall. We all know that heat rises (hot air balloon) cold air settles. If the inside of a wall is at 70 degrees while outside it's 20 below the air on the outside of a stud cavity will drop and the air on the inside will rise.. the fiberglass insulation does almost nothing to slow that down..As a result air will circulate in the stud cavity scrubbing heat off every time..
In addition the R value of a wood stud is about 2 so while the wall might rate R13 if the fiberglass is properly installed heat scrubbing will diminish that as will the thermal bridge of the stud.
SIP's have foam block solidly against foam block with no bridging (except at rough openings for doors and windows) My 6 inch thick SIPs had a R30 rating while the 12 inch roof panels had a R50 rating.
Finally with regard fire.. Stud built walls allow air which is required for a fire.. The three legs of a fire are heat, fuel, and air.
Foam prevents air so a fire has no source of air even if heat and fuel exist..
So now its both earthquake proof AND fireproof?? 
I've been building with SIPs panels for over 30 years. There was never a time when they were cheaper than a stud wall assembly. There are other reasons to use them.
Frenchy, your passion is honorable, but some of your details and facts are incorrect. Its hard to be supportive of you when you spend so much time contradicting and arguing with professionals in the industry, and presenting distorted facts.
I agree with most of what you say, but wish you'd say it with a lot fewer words. Your perspectives are very good, but you loose your credibility when you keep filling the voids with incorrect noise.
I hope you can take this constructively. Its not my intent to take a pot shot at you.
Thanks for your contributions.
In reply to SVreX:
I'm pretty sure I didn't say fireproof or eathquake proof
I did say that one leg of the required fire triangle wasn't available in a SIP. And I did say that rebar made ICF's stronger, hopefully enough so when the big quake hits and California falls off into the ocean my place won't fall down..
I do wish I could convey things briefer. However every time I've tried someone calls me on it and I have to go back and explain it.. But no I think your comments are valid.. I don't feel you are taking a pot shot at me..
For example.. As a pro you look at total costs including labor. Me I look at material costs and chalk labor costs as a good way to keep me out of bars..
Did I get a fantastic deal on my panels? They were cheaper than what plywood, studs, and insulation would have cost me.. But then I was paying list price at big box stores for studs/plywood, and insulation and got a really deep discount on the panels and had no shipping charges since they were made only 14 miles away..
In the decades I sold telehandlers to the housing industry I learned a lot about what tools worked and which to avoid. I also learned how efficient they were at stick building. My best was a 3 man crew, father and 2 sons. frame and ready for framing inspection a 2 story 2200 sq.ft. house in 4 days.. I never saw anyone panel a timberframe in all that time..
Fiberglass insulation is fine if you have an air barrier that isn't full of unsealed edges and holes.
In reply to frenchyd:
SIPs panels have ALWAYS been sold justifying the costs by including the labor differential. In other words, they are more expensive, and manufacturers need to try to convince contractors to use them by claiming they use less labor (which is a distortion, but I digress).
If you are taking labor out of the equation, the math should get a lot worse.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say they are cheaper.
OHSCrifle wrote: Fiberglass insulation is fine if you have an air barrier that isn't full of unsealed edges and holes.
I'm sorry but fiberglass is fundamentally flawed.. First it's what furnace filters are made of because it doesn't do much to impede air flow.. Second even a hermetically sealed stud cavity allows air to move inside it.. The cold air on the outside will settle while the warm air heated from the inside will rise.
The result is a scrubbing off of heat. Not to forget the bridging effect of studs.
High density Cellulose is much better in that regard if a way is found to completely prevent settling and avoid moisture contamination.. Solid foam offers the best protection in that regard..
SVreX wrote: In reply to frenchyd: SIPs panels have ALWAYS been sold justifying the costs by including the labor differential. In other words, they are more expensive, and manufacturers need to try to convince contractors to use them by claiming they use less labor (which is a distortion, but I digress). If you are taking labor out of the equation, the math should get a lot worse. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say they are cheaper.
I do absolutely agree that the labor component is higher with SIP's. I can only repeat that in my experience when I priced both methods SIP's versus stick framed with sprayed in foam. The S.I.P.s came out cheaper.. I suppose if I had accepted lower thermal loss protection and went with fiberglass and accepted the bridging effect of studs as inevitable that would have changed the math back in favor of stick built..
frenchyd wrote:OHSCrifle wrote: Fiberglass insulation is fine if you have an air barrier that isn't full of unsealed edges and holes.I'm sorry but fiberglass is fundamentally flawed.. First it's what furnace filters are made of because it doesn't do much to impede air flow.. Second even a hermetically sealed stud cavity allows air to move inside it.. The cold air on the outside will settle while the warm air heated from the inside will rise. The result is a scrubbing off of heat. Not to forget the bridging effect of studs. High density Cellulose is much better in that regard if a way is found to completely prevent settling and avoid moisture contamination.. Solid foam offers the best protection in that regard..
Every product has caveats.. my only point was this: if you stop the air flow through and even cheap fiberglass will work just fine.
""
frenchyd wrote:SVreX wrote: In reply to frenchyd: SIPs panels have ALWAYS been sold justifying the costs by including the labor differential. In other words, they are more expensive, and manufacturers need to try to convince contractors to use them by claiming they use less labor (which is a distortion, but I digress). If you are taking labor out of the equation, the math should get a lot worse. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say they are cheaper.I do absolutely agree that the labor component is higher with SIP's. I can only repeat that in my experience when I priced both methods SIP's versus stick framed with sprayed in foam. The S.I.P.s came out cheaper.. I suppose if I had accepted lower thermal loss protection and went with fiberglass and accepted the bridging effect of studs as inevitable that would have changed the math back in favor of stick built..
I thought the whole point of your original post was that it's easier (if you can build with legos) and cheaper with ICF's or SIP's. But, now you're stating its only cheaper if we score a similar deal as you. 
I'm sure you'll take another shot at my intelligence as you've done so before... But I'm legit confused at the point of this thread now that I've read all of your post.
frenchyd wrote: Solid foam offers the best protection in that regard..
I had the unfortunate experience of chainsawing a SIPS roof apart because the panels had failed. This occurred due to the original builders deciding that the factory supplied sealant wasn't needed, and the resulting cracks allowed warm interior air to rise through the system. The moisture would condense on the underside of the roof paper, against the OSB. The asphalt shingles did not allow any drying upward, and the foam did not allow any drying downward. The wet and rotting OSB attracted ants, who also bored into the foam. This is not good... We cut it all out, and rebuilt with conventional rafter framing.
If anyone reading this has created a similar situation, there should be some immediate attention given to mitigating the conditions which lead to this sort of failure.
In reply to frenchyd:
Ok, so SIPs were cheaper because of the INSULATION you priced with the stick built. Spray foam is not usually cost effective in walls. Spray wet cellulose is often better. Plus, it's completely unnecessary because the heat loss/ gain percentage through the walls is minimal. Besides, a very small percentage of garages are conditioned spaces.
Again, you are loosing it in the details. When you say things like "fiberglass is what furnace filters are made of and air flows thru it", it exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how a fiberglass wall system works. Fiberglass is not designed to stop air infiltration. It is designed as thermal mass. It doesn't do anything if it is installed without an air infiltration barrier as well as a vapor barrier. If the complete system is not installed correctly, the system fails.
SIPs panels generally have more R-value per inch than fiberglass batt insulated walls. But they are higher cost, and have much greater potential for catastrophic failure if installed incorrectly. If the system is installed without a 100% vapor barrier it will rot, if the building is built without adequate ventilation and mechanical air exchange occupants can become sick or die, etc etc.
Every building system has its positive and negative aspects, and ALL of them can fail if installed improperly. I disagree with your initial assertion- insulated concrete blocks, SIPs panels, and timber frame construction are all systems that are NOT well suited for a garage, partly because of cost, and partly because overall building usage, air exchanges, likely HVAC applications, etc.
SVreX wrote: In reply to frenchyd: Ok, so SIPs were cheaper because of the INSULATION you priced with the stick built. Spray foam is not usually cost effective in walls. Spray wet cellulose is often better. Plus, it's completely unnecessary because the heat loss/ gain percentage through the walls is minimal. Besides, a very small percentage of garages are conditioned spaces. Again, you are loosing it in the details. When you say things like "fiberglass is what furnace filters are made of and air flows thru it", it exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how a fiberglass wall system works. Fiberglass is not designed to stop air infiltration. It is designed as thermal mass. It doesn't do anything if it is installed without an air infiltration barrier as well as a vapor barrier. If the complete system is not installed correctly, the system fails. SIPs panels generally have more R-value per inch than fiberglass batt insulated walls. But they are higher cost, and have much greater potential for catastrophic failure if installed incorrectly. If the system is installed without a 100% vapor barrier it will rot, if the building is built without adequate ventilation and mechanical air exchange occupants can become sick or die, etc etc. Every building system has its positive and negative aspects, and ALL of them can fail if installed improperly. I disagree with your initial assertion- insulated concrete blocks, SIPs panels, and timber frame construction are all systems that are NOT well suited for a garage, partly because of cost, and partly because overall building usage, air exchanges, likely HVAC applications, etc.
I think we are both asserting things from two different perspectives.. Your points are valid but differ from my perspective. My points are valid but differ from your perspective.. Case in point, ICF's are simple to build with and require nominal expertise beyond what is offered with their purchase.. Because of that when labor costs are removed from the equation and compared with a Garage "kit" professionally built, they become economically viable.. You mentioned concrete blocks.. With your experience I'm sure you didn't mean concrete blocks was something I was an advocate of.. If so I do agree that concrete blocks are something best left to professionals while ICF's are something that should be within the scope of a D.I.Y. type person who is able to build and modify race cars..
In reply to frenchyd:
We are not discussing different things. ICF stands for Insulated Concrete Forms. They are shaped like blocks, so I called them blocks. For clarity, I will call them ICFs
You appear to be claiming ICFs are easier and cheaper. Ok. Cheaper than what? Your answer is "compared with a garage kit professionally installed".
I have no idea what this is.
Professionals don't use kits. They scratch build. What kind of kit? Wood framed kit? Precast concrete kit? SIPs kit? Panelized? Log kit?
ICFs are designed for INSULATING capability. Most garages are not insulated.
I have no disagreement that it is reasonable for a DIYer to assemble ICFs. The point is, let's compare apples to apples.
ICFs are more expensive than their wood framed counterparts WHEN BUILDING AN INSULATED WALL SYSTEM. That comes directly off the manufacturer's website. In other words, if you are going to consider using them to replace a wood framed insulated wall (typical residential house construction), they have advantages, and cost is not one of them. OK, I'll even agree with you that if you take out the labor for professionals to install ICFs, you might build cheaper.
You will STILL be building a system that is not comparable to typical garage wall construction systems. It is in excess- it is insulated, most garages are not. And it will cost more than a standard garage wall system.
The FIRST thing to determine is what the finished wall characteristics should be. If an insulated reinforced concrete wall is desired, then ICFs installed by DIYers are an excellent choice. But this is a more expensive wall than a standard garage wall.
Very few people on this board need to consider any form of kit. Most are capable of building a standard wood frame wall system.
The case for ICFs is NOT one of ease and cost. The cheapest (and arguably easiest) method is standard stick built. Labor cost is irrelevant. If you pay for labor, the cheapest wall is standard stick built. If you do not pay for labor, the cheapest wall is still standard stick built.
IF you are trying to build an UPGRADED wall system, consider ICFs. They will cost more, but you may be able to save a little by installing them yourself.
In reply to SVreX: You obviously haven't read the article in Grassroots Magazine I was refering to. If you do it will clarify matters for you.. (Regarding Kits and professionals)..
next; I accept your minor error regarding calling ICF's "blocks" it's not important, let's move on..
However you are mistaken if you believe a good vapor barrier is all fiberglass insulation needs to work well.. Build a perfect vapor barrier and properly cover the outside wall with Tyvex it doesn't change the physics..
Inside the wall cavity hot air rises, cold air settles.. the sheetrock heated by a furnace is at say 70 degrees' the outside wall is at say 30 below .. the air inside the wall cavity next to the sheetrock will rise and the cold air next to the outside wall will settle..
Heat will scrub off as it cycles around without being impeded by fiberglass..
Yes cellulose is better at resisting air movement but if put in wet and not allowed to dry completely a well sealed wall cavity has no path to eject the water vapor.. Not only is wet cellulose a terrible insulator but the cause of mold!!!!!
Solid foam on the other hand doesn't allow air movement or moisture inside it..
Regarding insulation and garages.. a working garage ( like we'd use to build/work on race cars in) either spends a great deal of money on heat and air conditioning here in the northern states, Alaska, and Canada or insulates.. I noticed even more and more southern garages are spending money on insulation rather than face expensive air conditioning bills as well..
With regard to the ability of a D.I.Y.er to properly build and insulate a stick built garage, that is a lot harder than the skill required to build with ICF's.
Plus you'd better redo your math.. I know you can quickly stick frame because of your experience and skill.. Also because you have the equipment to do so. Equipment that changes the costs.. What does a framing nailer cost? the required air compressor? a Skil saw, ladders, framing square, scaffolding, etc.. In the case of a D.I.Yer without experience I'll agree that he'll need to buy roof trusses rather than attempt to build them himself.. but how will he get them up on the roof? Hire someone with a crane or Telehandler?
Sure he can rent the tools but what if his schedule doesn't work out? The first time I did a roofing job on my old house. I'd budgeted for a week but things happened. Rain and an injury turned a week into a month. The rent I paid would have easily bought new roofing nailer at retail.. (nope! the rental house wouldn't give me a discount
)
A hack saw and a rebar bender were the only tools I needed to build with ICF's (OK since I sold Telehandlers it was easy to arrange the free use of one to handle my trusses and SIP panels)
coexist wrote:frenchyd wrote: Solid foam offers the best protection in that regard..I had the unfortunate experience of chainsawing a SIPS roof apart because the panels had failed. This occurred due to the original builders deciding that the factory supplied sealant wasn't needed, and the resulting cracks allowed warm interior air to rise through the system. The moisture would condense on the underside of the roof paper, against the OSB. The asphalt shingles did not allow any drying upward, and the foam did not allow any drying downward. The wet and rotting OSB attracted ants, who also bored into the foam. This is not good... We cut it all out, and rebuilt with conventional rafter framing. If anyone reading this has created a similar situation, there should be some immediate attention given to mitigating the conditions which lead to this sort of failure.
I'm sure any building method used if done improperly would cause failures of some sort.. Stick built if nails were avoided because......
yupididit wrote:frenchyd wrote:I thought the whole point of your original post was that it's easier (if you can build with legos) and cheaper with ICF's or SIP's. But, now you're stating its only cheaper if we score a similar deal as you.SVreX wrote: In reply to frenchyd: SIPs panels have ALWAYS been sold justifying the costs by including the labor differential. In other words, they are more expensive, and manufacturers need to try to convince contractors to use them by claiming they use less labor (which is a distortion, but I digress). If you are taking labor out of the equation, the math should get a lot worse. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say they are cheaper.I do absolutely agree that the labor component is higher with SIP's. I can only repeat that in my experience when I priced both methods SIP's versus stick framed with sprayed in foam. The S.I.P.s came out cheaper.. I suppose if I had accepted lower thermal loss protection and went with fiberglass and accepted the bridging effect of studs as inevitable that would have changed the math back in favor of stick built..
If I insulted you I do apologize.. If you knew me you'd understand that's not in my nature.. My original post was about alternatives to stick building.. I mentioned ICF's SIP's and Timberframe..
In the many decades I sold equipment to building contractors (and others) I never once saw a home built with SIP's. Having built my home using (in part) SIP's. The video's and sales presentation do not show the extra work required to build with SIP's. If they can be assembled faster than stick building, I never discovered it..
On the other hand I would use them again in a heartbeat in the same conditions... The gains I achieved were well worth the extra time..
1st. Material costs were cheaper compared to stick building and achieving the same insulation value.*
2nd. They offer a degree of fire protection stick building can never achieve**
3rd. They are 200% stronger than stick building
4th Thermal protection of SIP's is massively greater than fiberglass insulation in the real world..***
** The three required legs of the fire triangle are air, ignition heat, and fuel.. foam is solid and will not provide an air source unlike fiberglass which allows access to any air in the stud cavity..
*** My ceiling R value is R50 my walls are R30, unlike stick built there is no thermal bridge every 16 inches where a stud is to reduce the effective value.. Unlike Fiberglass there is no wall cavity scrubbing losses.. Unlike Cellulose there is no risk or total loss of R value or risk of mold if water should penetrate.
The house I tore down to build this one was about 1800 sq.ft. with 34 windows It would cost over $500 a month to heat in the middle of winter. The one thing I liked about it was the great care the builder had used in putting a complete vapor barrier in. That and the care he used in properly sealing and chalking to make sure there were no air leaks.. He showed me the receipt for the work done and as I tore down the old house I confirmed it was done correctly.. I'm using that same furnace in the new house which is 5500 sq.ft. with 105 windows.. In the 10 years since I enclosed the new house my worst heating bill is $200 a month..
OHSCrifle wrote:frenchyd wrote:Every product has caveats.. my only point was this: if you stop the air flow "through" and even cheap fiberglass will work just fine. LinkOHSCrifle wrote: Fiberglass insulation is fine if you have an air barrier that isn't full of unsealed edges and holes.I'm sorry but fiberglass is fundamentally flawed.. First it's what furnace filters are made of because it doesn't do much to impede air flow.. Second even a hermetically sealed stud cavity allows air to move inside it.. The cold air on the outside will settle while the warm air heated from the inside will rise. The result is a scrubbing off of heat. Not to forget the bridging effect of studs. High density Cellulose is much better in that regard if a way is found to completely prevent settling and avoid moisture contamination.. Solid foam offers the best protection in that regard..
The problem is not with air flow "through" a stud cavity.. A 2x4 stud has an r value of R2 compared to the laboratory rating of fiberglass of R13 so at least every 16 inches there is an area the length of the stud an inch and a half wide of with an R value of 2. Note many places there are two or more studs together which makes a 3 inch area of R2 or a 4&1/2 area etc..
That is the least issue with fiberglass.. If you perfectly seal each and every stud cavity the air trapped in that perfectly sealed cavity will still circulate.. Hot air will rise. It will be heated from the inside wall conduction. The sheetrock will get heated from the furnace to 70 degrees and warm up the stud cavity.. That air will rise (it's the principle hot air balloons work on)
On the other hand air inside the stud cavity will fall because the outside air is cold. Let's say minus 30. The cooled air will sink and in doing so scrub off or conduct air outside. It works the same way a radiator works.. (well actually more like a surface plate works) It's why even on a cold day the snow can melt away from a house..
You'll need to log in to post.
