|
Top 5 Dumbest Building Products https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9SsMIBGn2M I'm already shook at the idea of loving cardboard sheathing.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm already shook at the idea of loving cardboard sheathing. Pretty sure the paper flashing is even worse. I'm consistently horrified at the latest batches volume/development new construction poo poo materials. It really is a race to the bottom. We've gone from lovely builder grade fixtures and furnishings getting nicer (because the homeowner can see those) to cheaping out on the poo poo that actually holds the house together and makes it last more than a couple decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
So he says don’t do a direct vent, and don’t do a ventless...is there a third option or is he just saying gently caress you, do a real wood fireplace or get out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So he says don’t do a direct vent, and don’t do a ventless...is there a third option or is he just saying gently caress you, do a real wood fireplace or get out? I'm sure that wouldn't be acceptable either, since the chimney would be a massive heat sink/air infiltration point. Not to mention the fact that regular chimney wood fireplaces are super inefficient and suck the conditioned air out of your house and only warm the area surrounding the fireplace. A direct-vent (has outside air intake) chimney-based insert is probably one of the most efficient if you already have a chimney. Of course, you'd be better to knock down the chimney and seal/insulate the house, but not having some kind of 'fireplace' in the North is going to hurt your resale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So he says don’t do a direct vent, and don’t do a ventless...is there a third option or is he just saying gently caress you, do a real wood fireplace or get out? Chimneys are huge open holes in the roof you madperson Just gonna live in my hermetically sealed bubble and allow the carbon dioxide to kill my braincells. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:Just gonna live in my hermetically sealed bubble and allow the carbon dioxide to kill my braincells. To be fair, I think I've seen at least one video from that Risinger dude that recommends ERVs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_recovery_ventilation) in super-tight houses. I'm waiting for some of those CO2/other gas detectors to drop in price. They seems like something fun to play (create anxiety) with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Before I become a crappy construction tale (again), can someone tell me why I can only find one stud in the living room wall of my condo? It's new construction, so it's definitely drywall instead of plaster, but I'm starting to wonder if there are aluminum studs instead of lumber. I just want to hang my heavy loving TV already, but I'm starting to wonder if I should build a frame for the TV mount and attach it to the back of the entertainment center. I don't feel confident about putting that monster up with random drywall anchors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
How are you detecting studs? Magnetic stud finders are detecting the fasteners used to hold the drywall to the studs, so I guess if your drywall installers did a lovely job (or used non-ferrous fasteners  ) then you'd have trouble finding them.You can sometimes detect studs by knocking on the drywall and listening for if it sounds hollow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Just go the ultimate paranoia route and get a little endoscope to run behind the wall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Is there an electrical outlet in that area? One side of that will be along a wall stud, then you can measure 16" over and tap a little test nail to find another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
The Dave posted:Just go the ultimate paranoia route and get a little endoscope to run behind the wall. USB endoscopes that are of usable quality cost about $20 on Amazon. The one I have even has a convertible plug that does both MicroUSB and USB-A.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
wolrah posted:USB endoscopes that are of usable quality cost about $20 on Amazon. The one I have even has a convertible plug that does both MicroUSB and USB-A. Link plz!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Link plz! Here's the one I bought. It's a bit more expensive now than it was then but you can look through the similar items list and find a bunch of other options in varying lengths or with different connectors (USB-C, Lightning, etc.) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00STB0EW6/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
I'm tempted to order one of those, but on the other hand there's a good chance I don't actually want to know what's going on inside my walls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I'm tempted to order one of those, but on the other hand there's a good chance I don't actually want to know what's going on inside my walls. They're also nice for checking out ducts and looking inside engines. The engine thing is actually why I first bought it, but it's ended up more useful when doing wiring than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
So, about the ALE thing with renters insurance - I met with my agent today about my homeowners policy and other random poo poo, and decided to ask her about this. At least with State Farm, the renter would likely *not* be covered in the scenario in this thread as there is no loss to their property. Because there is no loss, there is no claim, and therefore ALE does not kick in. If there was loss from fire or other covered things, such as if a tornado had strewn her stuff around the neighborhood, then it would kick in. As it is, the only damage here is to the Owner/Landlord, so the renter would have to contact the landlord's insurance about this. Her policy does *not* kick in with this specific scenario with most carriers. My specific agent is State Farm, for what it's worth, but it sounds like that's fairly standard. Again, because there's no loss, the policy has nothing to kick in on. To make it clear, I haven't read OP's policy, nor anyone else in the thread's, and my agent could be mistaken about either State Farm's specific coverage (although she showed me a couple things in the policy that seemed to match up) or she could be mistaken that it's pretty standard. But the main thing seems to be "no covered loss = no coverage for related things." The landlord's insurance may pay out to cover alternative living, however. The Madison, WI area suffered from massive flooding over the summer and a lot of renters were up poo poo creek because of it, since floods are not generally covered losses. But yeah, I'm just relaying here, not trying to portray specific knowledge. I think ALE kicks in less than it's being stated in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
She has suffered a loss, though: she's lost the safety of her home. To not risk death by more falling trees, she has to move out. Did you mention to your agent that the home isn't safe to live in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Our Canadian policy specifically does, as a standard term (we compared 4 policies before committing).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:She has suffered a loss, though: she's lost the safety of her home. To not risk death by more falling trees, she has to move out. Did you mention to your agent that the home isn't safe to live in? I did, I said the dwelling was uninhabitable. The problem is they are not the primary policy for the dwelling, just the tenant. It's confusing and sounds like a lot of bullshit but honestly the explanation was pretty compelling. I would suggest contacting your agent(s) and asking them a hypothetical and find out. Edit: Renters insurance by and large is to cover your possessions as well as some liability if you perform an act that damages the place - you leae the stove on, go on vacation, and it burns the place down. You're covered up to $X of liability plus your own stuff, minus deductible. It's not primary coverage for the dwelling, like your renter's insurance does not cover the hole to the roof made by the tree. That right there seems to be the kicker - because none of the renter's stuff was damaged, there isn't a covered loss. Any issue with loss of use of the dwelling comes down to the lease, state laws, and potentially the landlord's insurance policy depending on the tenant coverage they carry. I'm grossly oversimplifying here but that whole thing seems to be the crux of it - her stuff wasn't damaged by a covered loss. Based on another post, her recourse for other living situations would be rent abatement due to the dwelling being uninhabitable and that being the legal recourse in her area. ssb fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Ok - another update of a sort. I spoke with my Dad who is upper management at a medium-size Mutual Insurance Company. He does commercial lines marketing, so he's not sure specifically, but he's inclined to think that in general, since the tree falling is a covered *cause* of loss, that even if the tenant had no stuff damaged, they would probably be covered by ALE. He also mentioned that State Farm does things different and use none of the standard forms. He may ask someone or look it up, or he may not. But at the very least it seems this may come down to the specific provider and language in the policy rather than being a general thing about how ALE works or doesn't work. Unless I hear back from my Dad with something specific, I probably don't have anything else to add. Insurance sure is a confusing and frustrating topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So he says don’t do a direct vent, and don’t do a ventless...is there a third option or is he just saying gently caress you, do a real wood fireplace or get out? I’m fairly certain there are non combustible products like mineral wool and firestop caulk that are capable of sealing and insulating a penetration like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Dirt Road Junglist posted:Before I become a crappy construction tale (again), can someone tell me why I can only find one stud in the living room wall of my condo? It's new construction, so it's definitely drywall instead of plaster, but I'm starting to wonder if there are aluminum studs instead of lumber. In new construction, they'd better be 16" on center. As a lst resort, measure 17.5" off of any door or window opening, or 16" off of a receptacle or wall switch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:So, about the ALE thing with renters insurance - I met with my agent today about my homeowners policy and other random poo poo, and decided to ask her about this. As long as the covered peril caused it, it's a loss. If you cannot stay in your home: that's a loss in & of itself. I can't guarantee that some carriers won't be assholes about it, but the three national carriers I've worked for, and most of the (many more) carriers my wife has done work for, use the cause of loss as their only test.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Why you should be proactive in fixing leaks in brick walls: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:*snip* Please see my previous joke about State Farm agents. It's quite accurate. PainterofCrap posted:As long as the covered peril caused it, it's a loss. This is also quite accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqU6yr-oulU LMAO the comments just blown away that American poo poo is worse made in general. Then handwaving it away with sour grapes over prices and a small minority using loving windows as an example extolling the virtues of a racially homogeneous country?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqU6yr-oulU There's truth in the price argument, though. Windows vary greatly in price and energy efficiency, but there's a point of diminishing returns that kicks in at a pretty low quality level. The first chart here: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2017 shows that even in cold-rear end Boston, once you get past the basic single-pane windows, your heating cost is not significantly lowered by spending $700+ for a window. The ROI would be decades out, which most Americans (average 10 years in a house) would never see. With dirt-cheap natural gas and cheap electricity (at least compared to Europe), there's very little incentive to try to eek out that last 10% efficiency improvement. It's still possible to build to high standards with top-notch products (that Risinger guy is an example), but his clientele are rich-rear end transplants from Silicon Valley that can afford to build crazy houses in Austin due to the cheaper (for now) land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
I appreciate that moss and mushrooms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
B-Nasty posted:I'm sure that wouldn't be acceptable either, since the chimney would be a massive heat sink/air infiltration point. Not to mention the fact that regular chimney wood fireplaces are super inefficient and suck the conditioned air out of your house and only warm the area surrounding the fireplace. I mean, woodstoves answered the question of 'I want a fire but don't want a giant sucking air hole' hundreds of years ago...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
B-Nasty posted:There's truth in the price argument, though. Windows vary greatly in price and energy efficiency, but there's a point of diminishing returns that kicks in at a pretty low quality level. The first chart here: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2017 shows that even in cold-rear end Boston, once you get past the basic single-pane windows, your heating cost is not significantly lowered by spending $700+ for a window. The ROI would be decades out, which most Americans (average 10 years in a house) would never see. Yes because consumer pocket books are how were should determine when builders start to save the environment, and build quieter, more efficient homes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Yes because consumer pocket books are how were should determine when builders start to save the environment, and build quieter, more efficient homes. Correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
therobit posted:Correct. *looks at thread title* *looks back at therobit* Friend, you came to the wrong neighbourhood. B-Nasty posted:There's truth in the price argument, though. Windows vary greatly in price and energy efficiency, but there's a point of diminishing returns that kicks in at a pretty low quality level. The first chart here: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2017 shows that even in cold-rear end Boston, once you get past the basic single-pane windows, your heating cost is not significantly lowered by spending $700+ for a window. The ROI would be decades out, which most Americans (average 10 years in a house) would never see. e: a consuner cost argument could be made against upgrading existing homes (which is where government grants come in) but new construction has no excuse. Splicer fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Jan 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
Splicer posted:"Spending $700 per window" is deliciously disingenuous. At construction time the cost difference isn't $0 vs $700, which is itself way more than you'd spend for triple glazed here. The net cost increase is maybe a couple of hundred per room. Legislating good windows as a requirement prevents exactly this false economy on new construction and also reduces supply costs. A couple hundred a room times 10-20 rooms in our oversized houses starts to add up to real money. So, the price of the house increased by $3000, but the owner saves at best $100-$200 a year in heating costs? New construction housing is already extremely expensive to build. Many builders don't even build 'starter homes' anymore, because there's so little margin in it. I don't think legislating more mandatory price increases is going to help that situation. I'm all for energy efficiency improvements, and for people to move off hydrocarbon fuel sources, but I think these improvements should be thought out vs their cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
B-Nasty posted:A couple hundred a room times 10-20 rooms in our oversized houses starts to add up to real money. So, the price of the house increased by $3000, but the owner saves at best $100-$200 a year in heating costs? And all that's ignoring the externalised costs of high oil or gas consumption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
Splicer posted:If you're not planning to live there for 20 years then you'll still see increased returns on your sale of the home. No you won't. Nobody spends more for a home because the windows are more expensive. That won't even factor into the appraiser's estimate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No you won't. Nobody spends more for a home because the windows are more expensive. That won't even factor into the appraiser's estimate. This is not always true. For example, in someplace like Florida, having actual hurricane rated windows rather than simply outdoor shutters, especially on a second floor, is a significant difference and will matter
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No you won't. Nobody spends more for a home because the windows are more expensive. That won't even factor into the appraiser's estimate. In Florida they definitely do, so maybe don't overgeneralize? E:f,b
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No you won't. Nobody spends more for a home because the windows are more expensive. That won't even factor into the appraiser's estimate. The presence or absence of multi point locks can also impact your insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Generally speaking, energy efficient windows will not increase the home value at resale enough to balance out the additional cost. I don't think you should put in the crappiest aluminum frame windows, but I do think cost matters and if you are in a mild environment it probably does not make sense to spend the additional money. If you are in Minnesota or Florida it probably does make sense to spend more, but I think whoever is paying to build the home should probably make that determination. I also think the consumer should decide if they want a stupidly complex roofline or a bunch of foam columns. In all situations though it is the right, nay the responsibility of jerks like us on the internet to mock those choices mercilessly, so you all are probably right to criticize poor decisions.
therobit fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jan 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
When energy efficiency is at odds with affordable housing, we should seek solutions that provide both. These solutions probably aren't based on the free market assessment of the value of energy efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 17:44
|
|