Why do manufacturers make ridiculous claims?

Page 1 of 2  
I mean, really ridiculous. It's insulting. Case in point: http://www.grassypavers.com /
They'll support 97,000 PSF?! Most interesting - particularly in light of the fact that the IRC allows a prescriptive soil bearing capacity of 12,000 PSF for crystalline bedrock.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RicodJour" wrote...

Well there is a succer born every minute, or so I've heard.

What's worse is that they contradict themselves on their advantages page by saying: "System supports more than 84,000 lbs. per square foot unfilled, and more than 164,000 lbs. per square foot filled."
--
hawgeye



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because they can? The plastic itself, when supported properly, can probably hold 97k lbs, but like you said, the soil below can't. The whole thing will sink into the ground. Its a meaningless fact meant to convince potential customers. I consider that sort of thing fraud, or in todays legaleze, attempted fraud. A good horsewhipping and then encapturement in stocks on the public square for 5 days will cure that problem and deter others contemplating such behavior. ...and the website should be shut down for 5 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cvmikeray had written this in response to http://www.thestuccocompany.com/construction/Re-Why-do-manufacturers-make-ridiculous-claims-9374-.htm :
Hello,
The test data we post on the web site is from the Mississippi Polymer Institute and the research paper can be downloaded there for review.
http://www.grassypavers.com/specs.htm
This load data shows the compression strength based on standard tests for this type of material. Any major installation should consult proper Engineering standards.
Please feel free to download the data or give us a call if you would like to speak on this subject one on one.
Thanks for considering our products.
Mike Ray - Product Distributor and owner of the website http:www.grassypavers.com (205)999-1744
------------------------------------- Don wrote:

##-----------------------------------------------## Delivered via http://www.thestuccocompany.com/ Building Construction and Maintenance Forum Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup - alt.building.construction,alt.architecture - messages and counting! ##-----------------------------------------------##
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is what I've always refered to as "fun with math". Like in statistics, you can take any set of quanitative data and by cherry picking the scale you can greatly exaggerate the results.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:35:09 -0500, TVeblen wrote:

Or as the Duke of Wellington once said, "There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics".
--
Registered Linux User 413057.
Both Mandriva 2007.1 and Ubuntu 7.04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The material works well for temporary overflow parking areas, but heavy use results in dirt. Growies need sunlight and water. EDS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, Candy cig's cause cancer http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070618/sc_livescience/studylinkscandycigarettestosmoking ;_ylt=AkfBMm0Zc.cRhIuYYUCgMxEDW7oF Ken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ken S. Tucker"> wrote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070618/sc_livescience/studylinkscandycigarettestosmoking ;_ylt=AkfBMm0Zc.cRhIuYYUCgMxEDW7oF
From that article: 25,887 U.S. adults who were surveyed online via a Harris Poll.....
22 percent of current or former smokers had also regularly consumed candy cigarettes, while only 14 percent of those who have never smoked had eaten or played with candy cigarettes ------------------------------------
Which also means that 78% of current or former smokers DID NOT consume candy cigarettes and 86% of those that never smoked also didn't consume the candy.
Of course, this is a crisis of a magnitude that is unimaginable and a gov't task force must be assigned with a $100bil/yr budget and a giant marble tower for their twice annual meetings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
They ought to do an online poll that will show that 99% of the people that consumed Snickers bars as children consumed even more of them as adults and thus the country has become populated by battalions of grossly obese fat asses, causing the couch and big screen market to soar to the ionosphere. The sock market is down 85%. Fruit of the Loom has doubled, and doubled again, the size of their manufacturing facilities for size 72 and over underpants. Put your money in the slip-on shoe market and become tomorrows Bill Gates.
NYT best seller: "Fat Asses", Giving yourself a reach around.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Milky Way <snort>

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most likely they are attempting to make the potential buyer aware that the pavers are stronger than the roofing components they are covering. Green buildings are the future in certain cases.
Point in fact is, there's nothing wrong with this type of advertising; engineers know that a roof is only as strong as its weakest link....... they are simply stating htat this isn't it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Roofing components...? They're designed to be driven on - used in landscaping. Saw no mention of living roof ballast, thought they would obviously be able to handle _foot_ traffic on a roof.

Point of fact - it's a bunch of crap. They're saying that _one_ square foot of their _plastic product_ would support 2/3s of an M1 Abrams battle tank. Puh-lease. The stuff would be dust.
It's a simple, straightforward lie in advertising. They're either misrepresenting the load capacity intentionally or through ignorance. Neither is acceptable.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

LOL, and what are the chances that 97k would ever be necessary? I mean, everything I have ever owned all total prolly don't weigh that much. 2/3 of an abrams...heh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's including the spent uranium armor.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There's a new trend to develop green roofs (covered with grass). Used on some commercial buildings made to be walked on by the tenets, also used to make a roof greener for a penthouse. That's where I've seen these types of products used, but not to any real extent.
As far as the loading goes, did you see that its designed to use a base of 6-7 inches of stone aggregate, covered with a bed of gravel 2' thick, with the hollows filled with pea gravel covered over with a 6" sand cover. The plastic pavers are used as a stabilizer for the gravel.
There should no problem in carrying a load of 675 psi using the method advertised on the website. I don't think you read through the entire specifications completely.
As far as what they advertise for loading, 674 psi is high, but not unheard of. "> Roofing components...? They're designed to be driven on - used in

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dennis wrote:

It's not a new trend. There have been roof gardens aand roof top swimming pools for decades. What I love to do is visit these roof gardens couple decades on.....It's not just the psi, it's also wheher or not your substrate (elastomeric, whatever) is meant to be wet all the time when you water mr. roof garden.When you are doing drainage into aggregate like you suggest, it's not wicking into ground water, it's wicking eventually onto your substrate. Essentially, then , what you have to design is a swimming pool that is designed never to be kept clean on top of a roof...And the best way to conquer such an issue is to give that water somewhere to go and to do it without clogging it with the dirt...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Forget left field, you've jumped the fence and are hanging out in the bleachers. Typical undisturbed prescriptive lsoil bearing capacity loads, according to the IRC, are in the range of a ton or two per SF. In other words, their paving plastic grid, resting on gravel (assume five tons PSF bearing capacity for gravel to show I'm not being unreasonable), increases the bearing capacity by TEN times. That sound right to you? If so, I sure hope you don't do your own calculations.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good Morning,
Interesting thread.
http://www.grassypavers.com/MPI%20Study%20Data%20and%20Explanation.pdf ot http://www.grassypavers.com/specs.htm and select the load data sheet link.
While I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, I do like to hear good feed back on the products I sell. I am a dealer for the product and I own the site http://www.grassypavers.com . I use data given to me for the site. If it is incorrect I would like to update the info so it correctly represents the product.
You guys obviously know your stuff in the load arena. I would love some feedback on this load data from MPI. Is it crap? if so why? This is where the facts come from we use on the site (actually from the 4 page brochure on the specs page). I will be glad to send samples out to anyone that would be willing to conduct these tests to see how our products hold up.
I would also be willing to take feedback and a real world writeup on soil load capacities and what benefits any kind of pavers provide for that soil base.
I want everyone to know about the product and I want that info to be correct. Architects, Designers and End users a like should have factual information in making decisions and choosing products.
So I hope ya'll don't still want to take out behind the shed. My goal is to provide factual data for our products. They are a good solution and are more durable than people think.
Please keep up the thread. I like a good debate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey Rico, if I get this dood to send me a sample will you lend me your abrams so I can run it up and down the product a few times? I promise not to mess around (too much) wif that nifty body armor you mentioned. When my product testing is complete, in about 7 years, I will post it to the domain www.abrams-does-grassypaver.nifong complete with full documentation, pictorials and even streaming video wif 'girls gone wild XXIII' as a backdrop. At that time I will issue you a gov't *check* in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for the compensation of your abrams, and you will receive full credit for your contribution on the domain. ** Minus expenses, of course, which we already know in advance will be in the neighborhood of $1,500,000.00.
I'm not trying to slip the nifong to ya. :-o

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most of the responses you are reading here appear to be from kids who are not associated with engineering nor with how engineered products are marketed (note the off-topic preoccupation with the falsely-accused Duke Lacrosse college kids).
Some are arguing that the underlying soil is not strong enough to support a truck, which is of course ridiculous. The substrate conditions would be engineered to take the assumed reactions necessary, while the manufacturers product is design to provide a soil base and drainage stratum. It is assumed that the underlying soils would be considered in any installation, and improved if needed. This product's advantage is only in the addition of adding grass to such areas; already deemed capable of withstanding the loading of vehicular traffic.
Reviewing the test reports provided, it appears to me (my opinion) that the testing performed by the University of Southern Mississippi is completely within established guidelines and have sufficient credibility. The only additional qualification I would ask to see is the signature of a licensed professional, registered in the state where the tests were conducted or from the state where the product is manufactured. I work in plan review for a nationally recognized testing laboratory and review test reports similar to this product, on a regular basis.
As always, the best results is the feedback from existing installations. If you still have any concerns over the product's durability, I would recommend contacting the manufacturer to see what problems and failures are occurring in the field.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.