Need ideas/advice

Page 2 of 2  
"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Is the world ready for this new development?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yea.. the Fundy-Rights like the idea of owning a clone... as long as it doesn't involve any real stem-cell research.. you know, the kind of stuff that could actually heal people? There is no money in healthy people. But actually 'owning' a clone is something that would appeal to a neocon. That research was so inconveniently interrupted when Bergen-Belsen was liberated. I guess the 'clone' statement was just a Freudian slip.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Embryonic stem cell research has led to very little advance in the field and very many dead ends. Whereas Adult stem cell research has already produced therapies and treatments successful for many years in areas such as spinal cord injury, cancers including leukemia, Parkinson’s disease and others.
Regardless of the moral debate surrounding the issue, common sense leads one to think it's wiser to focus research on areas that are already producing promising results, rather than areas that have led nowhere.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-MIKE- wrote:

Uh, most research programs lead to very many dead ends. If that was an a reason to not perform the research then we would not have airplanes or electric lights.

When has a human spinal cord injury been effectively treated using any product of "adult stem cell research"? They can partially repair a rat using embryonic stem cells but that's a long way from treating a human. The only information I can find about the use of stem cells in the treatment of human spinal injuries is a statement that there _might_ be a clinical trial using embryonic stem cells some time next year.

You have that one backwards, knowledge of the existence of adult stem cells came out of research into why bone marrow transplants were effective in treating leukemia.

One person was treated, got better for a while, then his symptoms returned. I find it telling that that experiment was not repeated.

Are we so poor as a nation that we cannot do both? The US spends less than 5 percent of the Federal budget on scientific research and about half of that is military research.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It appears that there are quite a few folks with knowledge of and experience with building/re-building stairs.
I have a set in the house we purchased that are too steep for comfort.
They go from the basement up to the first floor (or visa versa) landing at the hallway running down the center of the first floor area and about 5 feet from the basement wall. It turns out that the treads are about 11" deep, but the rise varies a lot! The "landing" at the basement is 10" above the concrete floor. The first step is ten inches above the surface of the landing. The next couple of steps are about 8.75" above the preceding steps! Not at all what I expected!
No wonder they feel "weird."
At any rate, I need to rebuild them - once I remove a chimney they put right at the wall in front of the basement "landing." which will give me anther 22" of space to "stretch" the staircase (do you call it "depth?"), albeit having a "landing" that runs right into a block wall requiring one turn left or right to "enter" the basement once all the way down.
Funny, one of the reasons I came to the "out lands" was to get away from all those damned City/County "inspections" and permits and such so I could build or add on as I pleased w/o "interference" and fees. I spent about ninety dollars on materials to build a small fence on our FL property. Folks would stop by and compliment us on the improvement. Then the inspector came and demanded "plans" and a $55.00 "permit!" OIy vey!
Now, I suffer from the lack of permits, plans and building inspections that never would have "passed" these stairs! Can't win for losing.
At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to proceed.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Hoosierpopi" wrote

This a simple calculator that will give you some options to consider:
http://www.toptreadstairways.com/stair_calculator.html
Had an Excel spreadsheet version, but can't seem to find it. If can locate it, I'll post a link to it on the website.
Also DAGS "stair calculator", as there are number of both free and pay versions of stair calculators on the web.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...the guy I learned from used a Mickey Mouse calculator...no kidding...with ears! LOL...he knew the rise and the run and knew his material thicknesses and the finish floor above...*I* went out and bought a stair book!
cg
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Codes do vary but the municipalities we work in are using the International Residential Codes for stairs. These changed some in '06 and most framers were/are not aware of some of the changes. The IRC requires a max of 7 3/4" rise (changed from 8") also the "greatest riser height shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8". There is no exception for the top or bottom rise. This is essentially a +/- 3/16" variance. Lastly, the most common problem is the 2006 changes require a minimum of 10" tread depth but that is now measured from nose to nose (not riser to nose). This actually requires an 11" tread depth assuming that you have a 1" nose overhang on the treads. There are still a lot of stairs around here being framed with less than a 10" run (11" tread) which are technically not legal.
Mike O.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike O." wrote

Are you sure about your IRC dates? We were building stairs at a "minimum tread depth" of 10" under IRC 2000 (granted, one of our local municipalities changed it to 9 1/2", IIRC, but that was their change)
Just a builder, not a stair builder, so I could be suffering from advanced CRS ... but I know a couple of local municipal building inspectors that I think would be surprised also? :)
What say you?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's the visual interpretation of the 2006 IRC. http://www.stairways.org/pdf/2006%20Stair%20IRC%20SCREEN.pdf Page #5 I think. As you can see, it says 10" but pay close attention to where they show the measurements. My guess is that a lot of inspectors don't know this.
Here's an alert for you....The visual interpretation of the 2000 IRC is here. http://www.arcways.com/pdfs/IRC2000a.pdf
While I thought some of these were changes from the 2000 version, I'm having a hard time finding any differences between the two....
Mike O.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike O." wrote

<snip>
I doubt that is correct, since that has been no change in the "minimum tread depth" of 10", or the way it is measured, since at least IRC 2000:
IRC 2006:
R311.5.3.2 Tread depth. The minimum tread depth shall be 10 inches (254 mm). The tread depth shall be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge.
IRC 2003:
R311.5.3.2 Tread depth. The minimum tread depth shall be 10 inches (254 mm). The tread depth shall be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge.
IRC 2000:
R314.2 Treads and risers. The maximum riser height shall be 7-3/4 inches (196 mm) and the minimum tread depth shall be 10 inches (254 mm). The riser height shall be measured vertically between leading edges of the adjacent treads. The tread depth shall be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge.

That's because, as you can see above, there aren't any. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree that there aren't any changes. The code really requires that you rip your treads at 11" minimum (assuming you have a 1" nose) but I've never seen an inspector fail a stair as long as the actual tread was ripped at 10".
Mike O.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike O." wrote

I agree. IME these days, most wooden residential treads seem to be purchased "ready made" at 11 1/4" and the preponderance used as is. That might vary from region to region, but it is certainly the case down here.
Then again, this is a large metropolitan area with almost every jurisdiction therein heavily involved in "building standards" ... get out in the unincorporated areas, which are almost non-existent for 50 miles in any direction and you may well have a good bit of tread ripping to shoehorn a stairwell.
The big issues here are minimum width of a winder tread (6"), and arguments over the "walk line" when measuring same.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We've been down that road too. We've seen some framed that did not meet either the 6" min or the 10" at the walk line. Since the framing inspection is signed off before we get there, they somehow passed.
There are a few things in the stair codes that I don't quite understand. Why is there a 4" sphere rule between balusters on a guardrail (horizontal) and a 4 3/8" rule on open stairs? Also they allow 6" sphere in the pie of the run and rise (if you run a bottom rail) so why is that different than having a 6" space between balusters?
Mike O.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...out here in SoCal there was a time when piece-work was the dominant mode of framing...this was during the tract-house boom in the 60's and 70's. I came in right on the tail end of it and even in my nubile state of skill development was sometimes amazed at what those guys got away with...short-nailing was common, basically anything to make a buck. Now, as a small contractor of the one-man-band ilk, I'm reminded constantly of those times whenever I do remodeling...pretty funny/sad. That said, I learned my lessons...one of them came from an inspector who told me his "quick" inspection technique for stairs (this is to determine whether he pulls his tape out or not): climb the stair with your eyes closed.
cg
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It appears that there are quite a few folks with knowledge of and experience with building/re-building stairs.
I have a set in the house we purchased that are too steep for comfort.
They go from the basement up to the first floor (or visa versa) landing at the hallway running down the center of the first floor area and about 5 feet from the basement wall. It turns out that the treads are about 11" deep, but the rise varies a lot! The "landing" at the basement is 10" above the concrete floor. The first step is ten inches above the surface of the landing. The next couple of steps are about 8.75" above the preceding steps! Not at all what I expected!
No wonder they feel "weird."
At any rate, I need to rebuild them - once I remove a chimney they put right at the wall in front of the basement "landing." which will give me anther 22" of space to "stretch" the staircase (do you call it "depth?"), albeit having a "landing" that runs right into a block wall requiring one turn left or right to "enter" the basement once all the way down.
Funny, one of the reasons I came to the "out lands" was to get away from all those damned City/County "inspections" and permits and such so I could build or add on as I pleased w/o "interference" and fees. I spent about ninety dollars on materials to build a small fence on our FL property. Folks would stop by and compliment us on the improvement. Then the inspector came and demanded "plans" and a $55.00 "permit!" OIy vey!
Now, I suffer from the lack of permits, plans and building inspections that never would have "passed" these stairs! Can't win for losing.
At any rate, I am open to ideas and suggestions as to how best to proceed.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), Hoosierpopi

...you're referring to "run" in staircutter terms...your treads are cut correctly for a 1" overhang leaving a 10" exposed tread (and if you cut them square with no lip you'll gain run), your risers are way out of whack. The extra run you'll get once the chimney is gone should get you an extra couple of treads and that will bring your risers into a more acceptable measurement.

...aw, what's a couple of projects, anyhow!?
cg

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for all the info/education! I am may just install wood flooring over what is there. If I stick with 3/8" thickness I will be within code.
Thanks again,
cm

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

Site Timeline

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.