On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:43:09 AM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
And then when I tell people what a loony hell hole the libs have
made of California, some people tell me it just ain't so. This is a good
example. Great way for govt to protect the consumer. Assuming that
judgement stands, it's the consumer that is going to pay it through
higher prices. The dopey DA that brought this case probably never
bought a 2x4 in his life. Another fine example of govt running amok.
On 09/16/2014 12:20 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
For construction ply the thickness is a 32nd under (not 16th) for 1/2"
and up nominal thicknesses, but for sheathing the length dimensions are
1/8" shy w/ tolerance +0/-1/16 on that...GP spec's for sheathing are at--
Hardwood ply is more variable in being often metric vis a vis English
units and thicknesses as isn't subject to needing to meet building codes
on strength, etc., that keeps bounds on how far they can trim stuff on
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:20:59 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
1/2" is not 7/16", it's 15/32, 3/4 is 23/32, etc. I just replaced some
roof sheathing and the 1/32 difference doesn't matter. If someone didn't
tell you, you'd never know it. Also IDK if the
1/16th shorter is true, but for roofing that doesn't matter either. There
is supposed to be some space between adjacent sheets.
Which is a reason for sheathing and other construction panels to be
short length/width. The thickness is purely cost-savings to the
fabricator--over enough sheets that difference makes up a lot of raw
The thickness _does_ matter when it comes to matching up with trim
lumber and the like, however. It's a pita when the joint is proud by
that difference. But, for sheathing/subflooring/etc., it is pretty much
immaterial other than for total thickness for leveling floor
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:12:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
This was a settlement. There will not be an appeal.
I think we are just going to see another sign. "trade size, actual
size is "X")
You might even see Lowes listing these in metric. (which most lumber
is these days) That would also get away from that x/32ds plywood which
is also metric.
I agree, they should have taken this to an appeals court but that
costs a lot of money.
I suspect this will prompt more suits and I doubt rational courts
would agree with this insanity.
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:29:33 PM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
It's not clear from the article exactly what it was. It says it was a
settlement handed down by a judge. That could mean that it was a negotiated
settlement, and the judge agreed to it. Or it could mean that the judge
settled the matter by handing down that judgement in favor of the state. If
it was actually a negotiated settlement, usually they make that clear by
saying the parties agreed to it. And if that's what was, then they can't
Here's another twist on it. One of the DA's involved said that it would
not have been a violation if what Lowes was selling actually conformed to
the NIST standards for a 2x4. He says what they were selling was actually
smaller than that and then if you call it a 2x4, but don't disclose the
actual dimensions, it's illegal.
On 9/16/2014 11:43 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Then you must have heard about the time a contractor sent his brother in
to buy 4X2's and the clerk told him that he meant, 2X4's. Guy said he'd
ask his brother and came back and said the clerk was right.
Clerk asked guy how long he wanted them and guy said he'd ask his brother.
Came back and said brother said he wanted them a long time, he was gonna
build a house.
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.