Member
· Västernorrland
· 12 012 posts
In Märsta, a residential area was built in the 80s/90s with masonite and slats as facade material. I suppose it was a design thing from the beginning since there were many different colors involved and the slats were arranged differently on all houses, but that facade story was short-lived. I believe all the facades had to be replaced within just a year or so.........
The main reason you need an air gap today is probably to be able to build with cheap timber and cover the facade with plastic paint.Rejäl said:
If you use real materials and ignore the plastic, Masonite works just fine and will probably withstand the forces of weather as well as the "modern" alternative.
But it generally requires not skimping on paint and materials, as soon as someone goes along with the paint store's suggestion, such a facade won't last long.
Don't agree...G guggen said:
@Rodgar Den Frie's wall can work even without an air gap, but of course, the risks are reduced to a very affordable cost if a vapor barrier and a one-inch batten are used as an air gap on the framework before the facade material is installed.Rejäl said:
Not even those who manufacture hardboard mention the material as "suitable" as a facade. Where do you find all these houses with hardboard facades?F fribygg said:
I actually tried to repair a door to a shed 15-20 years ago. Simply nailed a hardboard sheet on the outside to make the door tight and cover some holes. It didn't take more than 2-3 years before the entire door was scrap.
I have a simpler shed door that my father put together with heavy oil-hardened masonite in the late nineties, it's not new and fresh anymore, but the old man has been dead for a long time, and the door outlived him and still functions as intended, even if it doesn't exactly adorn its place.A AG A said:
It is written about how good masonite is; if it had worked as a facade material, surely many of the large house manufacturers would have used it for their facades, as they constantly use the thinnest, cheapest, and simplest materials in their house constructions...
And those of you who advocate building in this way, can you produce a manufacturer or designer who has designed this construction and who takes responsibility for its functionality over time?
And those of you who advocate building in this way, can you produce a manufacturer or designer who has designed this construction and who takes responsibility for its functionality over time?
Yes
I can share an anecdote, which unfortunately is very relevant, about how important the surface treatment is. When I bought our latest house, the previous owners had a new double gate made, 2 meters high, in core wood, 4 inches thick. Incredibly beautiful. A few years after I bought the house, this gate, which should last for a hundred years, almost completely rotted, but it was only visible when the paint started to peel off. The old man had hired a painting company that, the year before the sale, went around and smeared plastic paint on doors and this gate. This on a 10 million house that is a historical monument. I managed to save the house's doors, but there is much else to do in a 1700s house. It's that simple, the difference between maybe 5 years and a hundred years lifespan, and I will need to find someone who can make new ones and become at least 50k poorer.
What can be found are many house manufacturers making holiday homes without an air space, then you are limited to linseed oil or linseed oil as surface treatment. New factory-built houses with as much insulation as required today always have an air space and are effectively painted with plastic paint. I find it hard to see that it would work, partly because one would probably want substantial timber in the structure, hygroscopic insulation, and be limited to linseed oil as surface treatment. But it would be fun if someone did it, it would be quite an expensive house with a masonite facadeRejäl said:
Isn't the use of an air gap behind the panel on summer houses in Sweden assumed...