Wavy foundation?

[juiceweezl]

Its become the norm because we use more engineering these days than we did before. Advanced framing, new sheeting, etc has been proven by engineering models and thus become IRC. Yes, there are standards to bracing and they should be enforced, but I believe if built correctly the thermoply should be more than enough. I think we tend to try and overbuild due to the lack of knowledge. People think houses are built crappy because of stuff like this when reality it should be ok if it was built properly to these standards.

You realize t-ply is cardboard, right? Define advanced framing. Do you mean like what IBHS supports from their research facility -- you know, stuff like hurricane ties, tighter nailing on roof deck, heavier composite shingles with additional nailing, and OSB/plywood on walls with tighter nailing pattern? How about anchor bolts spaced closer than 6' o.c. (code minimum) or the cut nails/shot pins we see so often.

There's not engineering in residential homes to amount to anything, I can promise you that. Heck, even in high wind areas, 'engineering' on a home can be had for $250-500. Do you know how long it takes to run the calcs on an entire residential structure? To properly engineer the home against wind and seismic, just the structural stuff, it would take an engineer 2 days plus. That's to do everything from start to finish, all the calcs, all the detailing, etc. No one in their right mind would do that for $250 or $500. In Nevada, Cali, and other states where they do engineer homes, PE's get $10K plus per house. They actually run calcs though. You know what else? You won't see t-ply or similar used there either.

We don't overbuild. The code is a MINIMUM standard. In other words, it's the worst possible house you can legally build. The myth that something built to code is a gold standard is a terrible thing.

As for T-ply, you should do a little research on them. Don't look towards the experts like Clemson University, NAHB Research Center, Dr. Dolan, the APA, or any others that have run tests on the product. Just go to their evaluation reports. They offer 3 primary colors (grades of sheathing). The blue is their best at a whopping 0.135" thick. According to their evaluation report (which wasn't done by any of the 3 leading and recognized agencies), you can see that they require specific panel widths, fastening at a 3:3 pattern, and drywall on the inside of the wall. If you read deeply into it, you can see the absurdity of the report. It basically states that the cardboard panel is stronger than a sheet of OSB. No one can honestly believe that. The red follows the same guidelines but is even weaker, and the green is below that.

I'm not going to spend time totally picking apart current construction. There are many well built homes, and there are many poorly built ones. For those buying/building, just be cautious of smoke and mirrors with all products. If someone says you're getting a ferrari for the price of an old fox body, then be leary.

[8mpg]

You realize t-ply is cardboard, right? Define advanced framing. Do you mean like what IBHS supports from their research facility -- you know, stuff like hurricane ties, tighter nailing on roof deck, heavier composite shingles with additional nailing, and OSB/plywood on walls with tighter nailing pattern? How about anchor bolts spaced closer than 6' o.c. (code minimum) or the cut nails/shot pins we see so often.

There's not engineering in residential homes to amount to anything, I can promise you that. Heck, even in high wind areas, 'engineering' on a home can be had for $250-500. Do you know how long it takes to run the calcs on an entire residential structure? To properly engineer the home against wind and seismic, just the structural stuff, it would take an engineer 2 days plus. That's to do everything from start to finish, all the calcs, all the detailing, etc. No one in their right mind would do that for $250 or $500. In Nevada, Cali, and other states where they do engineer homes, PE's get $10K plus per house. They actually run calcs though. You know what else? You won't see t-ply or similar used there either.

We don't overbuild. The code is a MINIMUM standard. In other words, it's the worst possible house you can legally build. The myth that something built to code is a gold standard is a terrible thing.

As for T-ply, you should do a little research on them. Don't look towards the experts like Clemson University, NAHB Research Center, Dr. Dolan, the APA, or any others that have run tests on the product. Just go to their evaluation reports. They offer 3 primary colors (grades of sheathing). The blue is their best at a whopping 0.135" thick. According to their evaluation report (which wasn't done by any of the 3 leading and recognized agencies), you can see that they require specific panel widths, fastening at a 3:3 pattern, and drywall on the inside of the wall. If you read deeply into it, you can see the absurdity of the report. It basically states that the cardboard panel is stronger than a sheet of OSB. No one can honestly believe that. The red follows the same guidelines but is even weaker, and the green is below that.

I'm not going to spend time totally picking apart current construction. There are many well built homes, and there are many poorly built ones. For those buying/building, just be cautious of smoke and mirrors with all products. If someone says you're getting a ferrari for the price of an old fox body, then be leary.

Does it meet IBC code? Im just saying that if it didnt work, then IBC wouldnt allow it and neither would city residential code.

[juiceweezl]

Does it meet IBC code? Im just saying that if it didnt work, then IBC wouldnt allow it and neither would city residential code.

You clearly have no understanding of how evaluation reports and the IBC work. An evaluation report is simply a report showing testing and results per a particular AC (Acceptance Criteria). It's up to the code official to take that report and determine if it's code compliant. If they determine it is code compliant, then the product must be packaged, assembled, and installed exactly as specified in the tested conditions with precisely the same materials or stronger (as in wood species and concrete strength for example). If there is any variation whatsoever, then the product installation is non-compliant. Recognized testing agencies include ICC-ES, IAPMO, and ATI.

To give you a prime example of how evaluation reports and code compliance is misused, I will use T-ply. Someone like you sees an evaluation report and assumes code compliance. They never go and look at the report and its actual content. What someone often fails to realize is that a product like T-ply may only work for certain wind speeds and loading conditions, that it has to be at least 4' in width, that is has to have fasteners at 3" edge and field nailing, that it has to have drywall on the inside at a specified spacing, that it originally required drywall to be nailed (not screwed), and that it required other special framing requirements. Further, if you read into the current report, you'll see that their portal applications require the same holdowns, continuous header, etc. that is required otherwise.

As far as IBC not allowing it, they have no say so over what is used or isn't. That all comes down to the jurisdiction having authority. Basically, the building official is king and can accept or reject whatever he/she wants.

Don't take my word for it though. Just go build a room to hide in if a tornado comes your way. You can choose to use T-ply or similar products to cover the walls and floor or OSB/plywood. Which would you choose?

[black2002ls]

You clearly have no understanding of how evaluation reports and the IBC work. An evaluation report is simply a report showing testing and results per a particular AC (Acceptance Criteria). It's up to the code official to take that report and determine if it's code compliant. If they determine it is code compliant, then the product must be packaged, assembled, and installed exactly as specified in the tested conditions with precisely the same materials or stronger (as in wood species and concrete strength for example). If there is any variation whatsoever, then the product installation is non-compliant. Recognized testing agencies include ICC-ES, IAPMO, and ATI.

To give you a prime example of how evaluation reports and code compliance is misused, I will use T-ply. Someone like you sees an evaluation report and assumes code compliance. They never go and look at the report and its actual content. What someone often fails to realize is that a product like T-ply may only work for certain wind speeds and loading conditions, that it has to be at least 4' in width, that is has to have fasteners at 3" edge and field nailing, that it has to have drywall on the inside at a specified spacing, that it originally required drywall to be nailed (not screwed), and that it required other special framing requirements. Further, if you read into the current report, you'll see that their portal applications require the same holdowns, continuous header, etc. that is required otherwise.

As far as IBC not allowing it, they have no say so over what is used or isn't. That all comes down to the jurisdiction having authority. Basically, the building official is king and can accept or reject whatever he/she wants.

Don't take my word for it though. Just go build a room to hide in if a tornado comes your way. You can choose to use T-ply or similar products to cover the walls and floor or OSB/plywood. Which would you choose?

Not only does it require specific installation, I believe it also specifies which fasteners are approved for use. I can almost guarantee that most installations do not meet their specific requirements, nor do code inspectors verify the nail patterns or fasteners installed. When we used Burgess Construction Consultants, they would verify the nailing pattern on the Red Tply that was installed in the corners, and verify that it was in the correct locations, however, that was about as far as they went.

[Gasser64]

Yeah, there isn't a "standard" for that kind of piss poor workmanship in a neighborhood.

Have you gotten a response from bonded builders/the warranty company? What warranty guidelines are they using?

As someone else said, I would talk to other robbie hale homeowners in the neighborhood and see what they have going on. Sounds like it is time to start seeking legal representation.

Any update on this? Ever get anything done?