Spruce or pine?

[O]

Could it have to do with the construction's intended use? (gate) Spruce is a lighter type of wood than pine.

You asked me...
I assume that since it’s what TS wrote. But I'm curious why spruce was so important. And why TS wanted to avoid pine. Though that question is quite passé now. At least if you've read what's been written in the thread.

 

[O]

Why would TS want spruce for a gate if you can get pine for reasonable money?

Exactly what I wanted to know as well...

 

[O]

Then you are right, but the thing is that heartwood pine withstands moisture much better than spruce, meaning it lasts longer. On the other hand, "bad" pine is sometimes even worse than spruce. It's not often you see windows made of spruce. Personally, I would choose to build the gate in solid heartwood pine and saturate it in oil before painting any day of the week. But of course, spruce works fine as well.

Absolutely! However, both of these options hold up significantly worse than pressure-treated wood.

 

[fribygg]

Absolutely! But both of these options are significantly less durable than pressure-treated wood.

TS should choose densely grown oily pine or oak, fast-grown treated wood is not worth using for gates.

 

[O]

fast-growing pressure-treated wood is not worth using for gates.

I don't understand. Why "not worth"?

My experience is that gates made of pressure-treated wood last well for 30 years, even >50 years.

 

[Workingclasshero]

Don't understand. Why "not worth it"?

My experience is that gates made of pressure-treated wood last well for 30 years, even >50 years.

Fribygg is correct.
Today's pressure-treated wood is poor in terms of impregnation.
You need to choose close-grained wood if you want it to last a long time.
Then you are both right and wrong.
I laid my wooden bridge 41 years ago in pressure-treated wood, but my deck, which I built 28 years ago, has already required replacing several planks 5 years ago.

Choose close-grained wood at the lumber yard. Today, it doesn't matter so much if it's pressure-treated or not; it should be close-grained, installed correctly, with the right rot protection and the right surface treatment.
/Workingclasshero

 

[PHPersson]

Absolutely! However, both of these options are significantly less durable than pressure-treated wood.

Hence the debate among the scholars, my pine windows from the 1800s are somewhat older than most pressure-treated decks I see. So, I claim you are wrong when you say that... it depends on usage, maintenance, etc. In a gate... highly doubtful, I would say. But it would be really fun to do a test, the problem with, for example, comparing with barns in pine and spruce from the 1800s is that it's hard to find pressure-treated wood from that time.

 

[cpalm]

the problem with comparing with barns in pine and spruce from the 1800s is that it's hard to find treated timber from that time.

The problem is that the preservatives have changed over time. Treated timber in the 1800s = tarred timber. But it's not directly comparable.

Another problem with pre-treated timber in this context is that most of the treatment disappears when you split the timber. So it's less suitable for joinery like gates unless it's a very simple gate. Additionally, you can't compare decking with upright constructions. Completely different conditions.

 

[Alfredo]

is that most of the impregnation goes away when you split the wood.

Is it really that bad? I've split quite a bit of treated wood and haven't noticed any significant difference in appearance or durability.

 

[cpalm]

Is it really that bad? I've split quite a bit of treated wood and haven't noticed much difference either in appearance or durability.

Well, I may have drawn far-reaching conclusions about the reason, but it is generally advised against any processing other than cutting of pressure-treated wood.

 

[PHPersson]

The problem is that the impregnating agents have changed over time. Impregnated wood in the 1800s = tarred wood. But that isn't directly comparable.

Another problem with pre-impregnated wood in this context is that most of the impregnation dissipates when you split the wood. So it’s therefore less suitable for carpentry like gates unless it's a very simple gate. Also, you can't compare decking with vertical structures. Completely different conditions.

Of course, there's a difference, but our pressure-treated fence on the patio is already rotten at the bottom. It's from 2016, I believe (previous owner).
But tarred... now we're talking durability.

 

[O]

the problem with, for example, comparing with barns made of pine and spruce from the 1800s is that it's difficult to find treated wood from that time.

I see that as a non-issue. Today's treated wood is superior to that of the 1800s.

However, it is very difficult today to find pine of the same quality as what was used in windows in the 1800s. I would say that today's pine is inferior to that of the 1800s.

 

[O]

Another problem with pre-treated wood in this context is that most of the treatment goes away when you split the wood.

That's simply not true. There's no reasonable reason why that would be the case. The treatment remains.

 

[PHPersson]

I see that as a non-issue. Today's pressure-treated wood is superior to that of the 19th century.

However, it is very difficult to find pine of the same quality today as was used in windows in the 19th century. I would say that today's pine is inferior to that of the 19th century.

Since there is nothing to compare to, is your statement "Today's pressure-treated wood is superior to that of the 19th century." something you have evidence for, or is it just something you think/believe? You have a point that it's difficult to find good pine. Most XL-build and similar stores only sell junk, fast-growing spruce with 1cm between the growth rings with the only advantage being that they don't weigh anything, but if you do find it, then it's of course the same quality as the 19th century.

Then I don't understand how anyone who knows there are toxins in the pressure-treated wood (copper salts) would want to use it.

 

[AndersS]

Of course, there's a difference, but our pressure-treated fence on the patio is already rotten at the bottom. It's from 2016, I believe (previous owner).
But tarred... now we're talking durability.

And our neighbor's and ours from the early 90s have nothing rotten, vertical panels painted on all sides. I have replaced material in the piers when the surface starts to get worn after about 20 years, there is nothing rotten; instead, it gets reused as ground cover for wood stacking outside. I apologize, but a pressure-treated wooden fence built in 2016 hardly rots, this sounds very strange.