Just discovered that raw paneling 22x95 is as expensive or CHEAPER than chipboard flooring. I don't get it. Chipboard is a secondary product made from residual materials. How can it be more expensive than the primary product, the raw paneling? Now, raw paneling isn't of the highest quality, but as a subfloor, it must have certain advantages. The main one being that it's a natural product without a lot of glue and solvents.
Am I right or wrong here?
Am I right or wrong here?
The raw plank is not particularly smooth. You will probably need to put a layer of masonite on top, so the price difference disappears there. Before chipboard flooring, it was always raw plank used as subflooring, so it is certainly a tried and tested method. It is these subfloors that people refer to as "wooden floors" and that are often uncovered. How many times have you heard "when we removed the carpet, we found a really nice wooden floor"?
Well, I am hesitant about laminate directly on råspont. When you think about how it turns out on a roof, it's not just that the surface becomes rough, but the boards can bulge quite significantly. You would probably end up with a somewhat springy laminate in places. But maybe you can buy råspont of extra high quality, or sort it carefully. But then the savings disappear even more.
Raw boards are spruce wood and "old floors" of pine? Or??andersmc said:
I wouldn't use raw boards for subflooring; raw boards are kind of "junk wood" really.
use the wood floor, tongue and groove is a bit B, I have a villa with parquet laid directly on the råspont, and I can say that when the floor has cracked and you look under the parquet, it is not *oh what a nice wood floor I found*.... nice wood flooring and råspont are 2 completely different things.. I agree with the tool guru..
It's fun to have some opinions. Makes you think a little extra. The reason I started thinking about it at all is that I have re-roofed and replaced some raw tongue and groove boards. Those boards were, in fact, very straight and nice and tongued on both the long and short ends. They were purchased at a "fancier" building store. And with a nail gun, it's quick to lay.
Good point about the squeaking, I hadn't thought about that at all.
Another reason I'm thinking about this tongue and groove is that in my house built in '76 by a so-called mass manufacturer, the joints in the floorboards have started to give way, so when you step on certain spots, you could say there's a nice bounce in the stuff. This has happened in several spots, so it will probably end up with having to replace everything. It's mainly happened in the so-called walkways in the house.
Good point about the squeaking, I hadn't thought about that at all.
Another reason I'm thinking about this tongue and groove is that in my house built in '76 by a so-called mass manufacturer, the joints in the floorboards have started to give way, so when you step on certain spots, you could say there's a nice bounce in the stuff. This has happened in several spots, so it will probably end up with having to replace everything. It's mainly happened in the so-called walkways in the house.
My house was built in 78 and the floor chipboard is nailed, had some problems, mainly with creaking in the walkways but also some flexing in one spot.
When I installed click flooring and removed the carpet, I screwed the chipboard.
it helped a lot.
When I installed click flooring and removed the carpet, I screwed the chipboard.
it helped a lot.
I am considering installing a raw pine underfloor in my extension because I plan to lay a plank floor on top that will be screwed into the tongue. It feels better to screw into raw pine than chipboard, as it holds better. Does this discussion mean you advise against it?
Possibly, but if so, not 22 mm thick, always thicker.andersmc said:
Usually, it wasn't tongue and groove boards but timber planed on all sides.
A common thickness in the past was 32 mm; later, sometimes it was changed to 28 mm.
But always with tongue and groove.