Why did you pick out that one item? Why did you snip the rest of your list?
The discussion was about drywall vs. paneling, not about one method of hanging drywall vs. another. Your list of reasons of why paneling is better then drywall is what I find humorous.
[snip refererence-free angry rant]
Every commercial installation around here installs the drywall with the long edge parallel to the floor.
I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take long and makes for a cleaner surface.
Iggy has been preaching the value of vertical drywall for years. Sadly, few people listen to him so we are all doomed to inferior houses.
Which lead me to
Yeah, that is how I see it being done.
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote: Thank you and thank you again for actually reading, as well as comprehending without emotional bias. Yep, and that's why nice new houses burn to the ground in 20-minutes. A butt-joint 8', 10' or 12' up wouldn't bother anything and it would be a horizontal hump instead of vertical...if you didn't turn it into a taper.
If you know how to map a room or prep the site correctly, you end up with extremely few corrections in a vertical install. Again, if the panel goes floor to ceiling, there isn't even a single butt in the entire building.
You're not wrong, drywall can never be considered structural. However, by connecting the top and bottom plate the drywall can't crack and all movement is forced into the screws, where they can harmlessly widen their holes if and as needed.
Correct, but why purposely MAKE anyone's job more difficult by not completing your job? You wouldn't stand for framers putting in just enough studs to hold the place up (72"-o.c.) and leave you with finishing their work. Same goes for the ceiling, try cutting-in a horizontally installed room with a roller. You can't, the angle's less than 90-deg., instead of more than 90-deg.
Great questions! You're actually the only sane person I've ever run into. I hope you give vertical a try someday and finally allow drywall to do it's best. Cracks, sags, specialty compounds, tape indecision, additional tools or cords and bad-day mud jobs will all go away to leave you with a superior job.
replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote: Bravo! Yep, a very shallow 1/8" "V" in framing for Vertical or a recessed stud or butt-board attached to blocking makes all the difference in quality and speed.
replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote: Yep, that Handbook is based on the error that's always been in the ASTM...the word "except" should actually be "especially". But again, I got nowhere with any of the manufacturers nor the ASTM this year. They just won't recognize their air-tight requirement was completely abandoned due to 1-wrong-word.
replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote: It is entirely possible. But, you also may be also seeing just the 2nd layer. A
2-layer Fire-Rated Assembly usually is required to start-out vertical (for air-sealing) and the 2nd layer is required to be either perpendicular or fully offset to the first. Again, it may not be the case, I'm just saying as an FYI.replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote: Sorry, I didn't see how commonsense, truth, fact and reality was in question.
replying to Ed Pawlowski, Iggy wrote: Yepper, another year of failure in trying to save the world. It's really amazing that the word "except" hasn't very simply been corrected to "especially" in
10-years. I got nowhere with any of the manufacturers nor the ASTM. They just don't see a problem with completely abandoning their own air-tight requirement.
On its face it's easy to do, especially for a single person. Perhaps even more forgiving. Doing it well so it doesn't look like your 5-year-old took point... that's an entirely different matter.
I keep meaning to practice on some exposed lathe underneath my staircase.
The previous owner of my house cheaped-out fixing a leaky southerly wall of a stairwell. His contractors didn't fix the leaks properly. Then they used drywall to replace the plaster on that entire wall.
I've had (or I think I've had) two of the biggest culprits fixed, but there's still too much moisture penetration on that wall. The drywall is too damp and beginning to sag--probably didn't hang it right. An adjacent wall is still the original plaster+wood lathe, and even with a leaky window (took awhile to realize) the only serious damage was some peeling paint and a small, contained area of plaster that needed patching. (Painter got to do that; not me :(
At some point I'm going to have to take that drywall down just to see what the previous homeowner was hiding. And I'm definitely not going to put drywall back up. The house is too old (1926) and passes too much moisture (near the ocean). That's fine for plaster, but not kind to drywall. Removing all the cladding (3 sides clapboards, 1 side stucco) and re-wrapping[1] the house would be way too expensive (can't even entertain that idea) and unnecessary.
There are good plasterers here. I live in a major city where there's enough work to keep the skill alive, not just for high-end restoration work. (Though I suppose any job putting up new plaster might be considered high-end.) But they're still expensive given the amount of time involved. So I may give it a go myself if I can find the time to practice first. I also need to parge[2] the foundation, which I'm hoping will help me learn some.
[1] The house is wrapped in tar paper, but it's not as impermeable as the modern stuff, and at 90 years old probably no longer as impermeable as it once was. [2] I think the previous owner tried to parge with a portland cement mixture, which failed horribly. (Pretty sure he was trying to hide some disintegration.) AFAIU, portland cement is much less water permeable than the cement used in the old foundation. The parge coat is popping off in large chunks. The parge coat needs to have the same permeability as the concrete so the water and salts can pass through to the surface. The parge coat becomes a sacrificial layer, I guess, extending the life of the foundation. Presumably a bad parge coat hastens disintegration. Like with the stairway wall, using modern products piecemeal is just a really bad idea.
"once"? Ha ha ho ho. I've drywalled a few rooms and many walls over the y ears. It is damned efficient to hang drywall. Full 4x8 foot sheets cover
32 square feet. Four on a wall and the whole wall is covered. 30-60 minut es later you are done hanging and taping and spreading the first coat of mu d. Wait a day and smooth and apply the second mud coat in a few minutes. Wait another day and smooth and apply a finish third mud coat. Smooth it a day later and your are ready to paint. You might have 2-3-4 hours of tota l time in drywalling and taping and mudding an entire room. Pros of course can probably hang and apply the first coat of mud in under a day to an ent ire house, including the ceilings. Drywall is cheap and efficient!!! Hous e builders LOVE it for those reasons. And it makes a good looking wall whe n done too.
latter, not sure if you are referring to prefinished paneling so popular in the 60's and 70's or t&g/shiplap boards...In either case, material cost is drastically different, maintenance and ease of installation, is so much si mpler with GWB (other than the short learning curve of properly dealing wit h butt joints). There are any number of tape and finishers that will do the dirty (skilled) work after you install the GWB for incredibly reasonable c ost...
I was reading your post and could not figure out what GWB meant. Thought a bout it awhile and figured out its "Gypsum Wall Board". Drywall.
So, what you are saying is the companies that make drywall sheets, the manu facturers of drywall, are F---ing stupid and DO NOT know how to hang the dr ywall they have spent millions of dollars building plants to manufacture it . Do you know drywall comes in 8, 10, 12, 16 foot lengths. And 4, 4.5, 5 foot widths. Why would a drywall manufacturer make these sizes? Most hous es in the USA have 8 foot high walls. And 10 to 20 foot wall lengths. So by using two 4 foot wide drywall sheets and various lengths, its easy to co ver a wall horizontally. And now days 9 foot and 10 foot walls are getting very common. So drywall manufacturers make 4.5 and 5 foot wide drywall sh eets. Use two of them horizontally to cover a wall from floor to ceiling. Go to any drywall retailer and you will find lots of 4x12 and 4x16 drywall sheets. How many walls in a house are 12 or 16 feet tall? Most are 8 feet high. So you can easily stack two 4 foot wide sheets of whatever length h orizontally and cover a wall.
Your vertical hanging rant is akin to saying NASA doesn't have a F---ing cl ue how to launch rockets into space. Yes NASA can build and manufacture go od rockets to get into space. But they are stupid on the launching aspect. You know how to launch rockets. You know the right way is to shoot them into the ground so they come out the other side of the earth. That's the r ight way to do it.
replying to russellseaton1, Iggy wrote: No, the manufacturers know very well that Vertical's the only right way. They even make their products specifically for Vertical. If they made it for horizontal, they'd taper only 1 edge and both ends, so there's never a butt-joint and never any Carpenter and Painter screwing bevels.
But, the idiots of the world keep training more idiots. So, the manufacturers just said "hey we can make more money off these fools", after DECADES they finally stooped to the horizontal level with 4.5' and 5' wide sheets.
And absolutely not, horizontal is not faster. As soon as horizontals have to do butt-joints, they're spending 4-times the time on them...4-times the mud too. I know its not easy to accept, but you really have to try it.
Sorry, I can't get into the ISS, NASA, GPS, Voyager, String Theory, Big Bang, Diamond Rain, Ball Earth or the Moon and Mars here. Post a question on Homeowners Hub for that bevy of nonsense.
Why do you snip our posts to such an extent that there absolutely no context left?
Remember Iggy is short for ignoramous. It's obvious where he got his name.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.