> For normal construction tasks, I don't care one bit about this one bit. And you shouldn't either.
I agree, and I'd go as far as to say that the author is a bit confused and showing some confirmation bias. Let me explain.
Engineered wood indeed creates elements from imperfect timber that are free from defects and exhibit the same engineering properties, if not better.
This has absolutely zero to do with old vs new growth trees. It is exclusively due to the need to maximize the amount of wood you can take out of a tree. Old growth trees might have more wood to pick and choose from, but nothing stops anyone from using the exact same techniques with timber from old growth trees.
The only reason why you don't see as much old growth trees in this process is the fact that there aren't that many anymore.
Another reason why you see new growth trees being used extensively in engineered wood products is that you can put together massive structural elements from smaller lumber elements, and they are far cheaper and plentiful.
There's a story on how the renovation of Oxford's dining halls required massive oak trees which were hard to come by, but it turned out those who built Oxford's dining halls had the foresight of planting oak trees when they built the structure. They did so because they knew the beams would eventually have to be renovated.
With engineered lumber you do not need to plan centuries ahead to have your structural elements. You just build the elements you need from the timber you have at your disposal.
> In all likelihood, the story is a blend of myth and reality. While the College, in keeping with standard woodland practices in Britain, has always kept groves of oaks intended for construction purposes, it isn’t clear that any particular set of trees was officially designated to replace the beams of the College dining hall
Another example (more grounded in modern times and less myth)...
> I agree, and I'd go as far as to say that the author is a bit confused and showing some confirmation bias. Let me explain.
The author mostly cares about rot resistance in a window, though?
New engineered wood products rarely help with this. We have treated wood, but if someone is making an exterior window they'll generally resort to using a rot resistant species (white oak, sapeeli, cedar in budget applications) that isn't the SPF we use in engineered lumber.
I see this with my wooden windows from the 1990's - they're rotting and will have to be replaced wholesale. My wooden windows from pre-1960 on the other hand are restorable.
And in both your 1990s windows and your pre 1960s windows modern windows are so much better that you should replace those windows just for the better insulation value.
You replace the glass for the insulation value. You don't need to (and shouldn't!!) replace a wooden frame.
Replacing good wooden windows with vynil/aluminium windows is basically signing up to a subscription to the window company. You can't really restore that vynil crap, and the lifespan has a hard limit at 15 years when the double seal breaks.
I'm just replacing the panes and restoring the wood. On the parts where the wood rotted out, I'm replacing the crappy cheap wood with rot resistant hardwoods.
Modern windows aren't that much better. Window companies have good marketing.
A 200 year old single pane window is R-1. Double pane is R-2, and with argon maybe R-3 or R-4.5
Triple pane is R-3 to R-6 depending, and vacuum sealed glass is R-4 to R-14(!!! But no one buys that).
Changing an old window to a new one is often a stark difference because the old window leaked air. Not because the R-value is much lower. You can fix that with reglazing.
Not sure where you buy from but good quality plastic windows have definitely more than 15 years durability. Ie ours are 20 and no sign of weakening isolation.
We have cca proper winters (maybe not this year) and thermal+humidity sensors in most rooms so a badly insulating window/door would be noticed quickly.
I live in Ontario, I also have proper winters. It's not so much the plastic windows I bought than the ones previous owners did.
The argon seal eventually fails with enough cold/hot cycles, or wear on the silicon seal, etc.
If you're a diligent homeowner, you probably minimize the temperature cycles and take care of the seals, they might last 25-30 years (especially if it's good quality units).
If I'm buying a new window I want something that I can repair and maintain for a long time. So it's wood frame for me, and specifically a rot resistant wood species if possible (not old growth, unless it's reclaimed)
Do you not realize how long is 15 years? Or how long is 25-30?
The windows in our house, Hudson Valley(NY), are at least 30 years(all mechanical parts are labelled as "pre-1994") - they are not showing much wear... considering that we get -20C to +30C swings every year.
If you're paying $20k every 20 years, that averages out to a $80/month "window subscription" when itemized
That said, my property is really old and has effectively all window types in one place or another. Because it had 15years of lack of maintenance I can see which are repairable, which aren't, and how fast each degraded.
The really old windows aren't much of an issue (as OP said). Reglaze, reseal, performance is decent.
Cheap wooden windows are more of a problem, but repairable and upgradeable.
Cheap plastic windows have not fared well all. The plastic frame isn't in place due to heat/cold/UV exposure and they're a full replacement. They leak tremendous air and let bugs in.
I guess Swiss quality is simply Swiss quality. If your windows after 15 years leak bugs inside than my friend previous owner bought the cheapest of the cheapest possible from aliexpress of last decade(s), not even ultra cheap eastern European stuff is that bad that quickly.
Overall, some folks love repairing old broken stuff (or need to due to financial circumstances). Most of us, our life satisfaction lies very much elsewhere and to spend our valuable remaining free time to just to learn properly and maintain such stuff that doesn't matter much in long run seems... unwise. Investing into relationships and intense experiences work generally better here.
I see plenty of older folks who maintain their houses and garden around themselves (I mean proper gardens with fruits and veggies etc, not those uniform fugly mandatory US lawns). It takes so much of their energy that they have little time nor energy for some other serious hobbies, travel etc. Eventually in old age they can't keep up and its extremely depressing for them, since their effort is usually lost to their kids and they just get rid of that ol' house.
I don't doubt Swiss made stuff is much tighter and has better detailing than North American builder grade crap.
For the "leaks bugs" part - ladybugs here will find a way in as soon as you have a 1.5-2mm gap. They find them all. It can be between the frame and the siding, the silicone caulk cracking, a mechanical window that doesn't quite close tight, or anything else. It's a nice confirmation that your window has failed and leaks air.
With that said, I mean no offense to your beautiful country, but Swiss weather isn't as rigorous as Canadian weather. In the last week we've had a 36hour period with both +14c and -19c outdoor temperature. Our weather puts a lot of expansion stress on any outdoor facing material.
> Overall, some folks love repairing old broken stuff (or need to due to financial circumstances).
That's true. There's also a philosophical position that I don't like buying new when repairing isn't that hard. I've done it for TV's, computers, windows, etc. It's fun to learn how things work around you as well.
> Investing into relationships and intense experiences work generally better here.
I don't think they exclude each other at all
> I see plenty of older folks who maintain their houses and garden around themselves
For what it's worth, it's one of the better hobbies for retired people. It gets them outside and moving. Being close to nature is good for you as well.
Ideally they'd have hobbies that would keep them close to other people (the best thing for you), but all in all it's much better to be out gardening than on Facebook rotting their brain.
Lots of bullshit in your post. Probably speaks to your youth and lack of long term perspective. I sure hope you get a chance to tend a garden someday, and every day.
Plastic windows are absolute garbage, and will rarely hit 20 years without problems in any location with significant temperature swings, or extreme cold or extreme heat. I know, because I have some. I've also had some old old hardwood window frames, and they've been by far the most resilient...but really same goes for all hardwood materials. My best friend growing up, in "ultra cheap eastern Europe", lived in an old (early 1700s) all-wood house. There was 0 maintenance. The wood simply refused to rot.
>Most of us, our life satisfaction lies very much elsewhere and to spend our valuable remaining free time to just to learn properly and maintain such stuff that doesn't matter much in long run seems... unwise.
I think throwing plastic windows into the dump heap to pollute the local waterways and ultimately ground water (and maybe air if your dump incinerates), is vasty more unwise than simply using biodegradable, 100% renewable, and much longer lasting, not to mention beautiful, wood.
That's the seal between the panes of glass that make up the cartridge, has nothing to do with what the frame is made of. Replacing it when the seal fails is pretty trivial.
I consider leaked air part of the r-value, but you are correct that is the real problem. It isn't just the windows, it is the seal between the window and frame, and the frame itself that are also problems.
If you can fix old windows to be good - then good. I fully agree modern windows are not great, but R-2 is still better than 1.
I agree, and I'd go as far as to say that the author is a bit confused and showing some confirmation bias. Let me explain.
Engineered wood indeed creates elements from imperfect timber that are free from defects and exhibit the same engineering properties, if not better.
This has absolutely zero to do with old vs new growth trees. It is exclusively due to the need to maximize the amount of wood you can take out of a tree. Old growth trees might have more wood to pick and choose from, but nothing stops anyone from using the exact same techniques with timber from old growth trees.
The only reason why you don't see as much old growth trees in this process is the fact that there aren't that many anymore.
Another reason why you see new growth trees being used extensively in engineered wood products is that you can put together massive structural elements from smaller lumber elements, and they are far cheaper and plentiful.
There's a story on how the renovation of Oxford's dining halls required massive oak trees which were hard to come by, but it turned out those who built Oxford's dining halls had the foresight of planting oak trees when they built the structure. They did so because they knew the beams would eventually have to be renovated.
https://longnow.org/ideas/humans-and-trees-in-long-term-part...
With engineered lumber you do not need to plan centuries ahead to have your structural elements. You just build the elements you need from the timber you have at your disposal.