We are soon about to conduct the final inspection of our newly built Onsalavillan house (some interior work remains). I have noted that the exterior paneling is not beveled at the bottom end; there is therefore no "drip edge" / "drip nose."
My question is whether facade wood should be beveled at the bottom end or not? What do you think? Has anyone received remarks on this in inspections and the like?
My question is whether facade wood should be beveled at the bottom end or not? What do you think? Has anyone received remarks on this in inspections and the like?
:
Scholars disagree on that. More and more manufacturers have abandoned the slanted cut because some argue that the effect of the cut is negligible. Nowadays, it also no longer results in a remark during inspection.
8) I myself do the slanted cut, but I build for myself independently.
Scholars disagree on that. More and more manufacturers have abandoned the slanted cut because some argue that the effect of the cut is negligible. Nowadays, it also no longer results in a remark during inspection.8) I myself do the slanted cut, but I build for myself independently.
As I see it, the most important thing on this part of the house is that there's enough paint on the ends. Whether it's beveled or not is probably less important, at least compared to whether the painter has done his job.
Diversearbetare
· Göteborg
· 10 704 posts
I had two old carpenters who mounted the facade on my Falu red slathered house. They have been at it since the early 60s. To my surprise, they cut straight edges. Not because it saved time but because "it lasts longer and doesn't rot as quickly." ???Immobil said::
The explanation came from the inspector: A straight-cut panel gets less wet because the larger horizontal surface dries up faster than a pointed one, which gathers all the water along a line. Rot can thus enter more easily at the tip than on the surface of a straight-cut panel. Thus, two "learned men" said the same thing.
I think it's best if you cut the panel at a 17-degree angle, because that's what I've done... then I have impregnating oil, primer, and three layers of topcoat on the ends.....
I wonder if those wise guys considered that the water collected on the tip sees the sun (facing south) and therefore dries faster, while the water on the straight-cut timber is shaded and therefore dries more slowly.....
I wonder if those wise guys considered that the water collected on the tip sees the sun (facing south) and therefore dries faster, while the water on the straight-cut timber is shaded and therefore dries more slowly.....
Good that everyone seems to agree ;-)
Anyway, ours is not cut at an angle and will therefore remain so. That is, straight. I hope to report back in seven or eight years.
Another thing I've picked up on, while we're on the subject, is that you should NOT impregnate the end grain. The reason is that by impregnating it, you create a pocket inside the wood where the water can't get out. What do you think about that reasoning?
Anyway, ours is not cut at an angle and will therefore remain so. That is, straight. I hope to report back in seven or eight years.
Another thing I've picked up on, while we're on the subject, is that you should NOT impregnate the end grain. The reason is that by impregnating it, you create a pocket inside the wood where the water can't get out. What do you think about that reasoning?
You hear a lot before your ears fall off.Don Tom said:
Then maybe it's best not to paint at all, because then you seal one side of the boards....... :-X
The water isn't likely to stay piled above the impregnation; if the water wants out, it will move sideways towards the untreated side.
I've taken a sneak peek at my dad's house, and you can clearly see that the wood is damaged where he's been careless with painting the ends. 80% of the water enters through the end grain, so I believe in impregnation, priming, and a good amount of topcoat.
Diversearbetare
· Göteborg
· 10 704 posts
Have you checked your 17° against a reference? A deviation of a half degree could be disastrous.MathiasS said:
Johan Gunverth said:Have you checked your 17° against a reference? A deviation of even half a degree can be disastrous.
The whole house is a 17-reference. Everything that is crooked is 17 degrees because it matches the windows and window sills in a nice way....
I have been thinking a bit more about that.
The surface tension on the straight surface should be significantly greater than on the "point." In other words, less water accumulates on the pointed surface than on the straight one overall.
The surface tension on the straight surface should be significantly greater than on the "point." In other words, less water accumulates on the pointed surface than on the straight one overall.
If one extends Your reasoning and combines it with Your earlier observation that 80% of the water comes in through the end grain, one can assume that water would be more easily absorbed into the wood if the fibers are exposed by bevel cutting the end grain?
There must be some reason, other than purely economic reasons, that home builders who previously bevel cut facades have stopped doing so.
There must be some reason, other than purely economic reasons, that home builders who previously bevel cut facades have stopped doing so.
Diversearbetare
· Göteborg
· 10 704 posts
The most probable reason is likely inferior panel wood. Fast-grown and quickly dried.Don Tom said:
I have a house from 1970 where the end grain on the panel (straight cut) has never been painted. Only now has the facade started to deteriorate.
When I replace the facade, I probably won't worry about whether it should be bevel-cut or not,
if I paint the end grain, the facade will likely outlive me anyway...
When I replace the facade, I probably won't worry about whether it should be bevel-cut or not,
if I paint the end grain, the facade will likely outlive me anyway...