I dont know why they have to lie about it. At $5/8ft board you’d think I paid for the full 1.5. Edit: I mixed up nominal with actual.

    • [email protected]@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      You’d think so, but no.
      Short story is the ‘nominal’ size is the size before going into a planer to smooth the faces.
      Yes, it makes little sense, like many things related to construction stuff.

      • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah sorry. The tree was originally 50ft tall so we call the pieces that. But you only get 3ft

        Is like buying 1200lbs steaks because that’s what the cow weighs before it gets parted

  • RagnarokOnline@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Good thing you checked, that’s ridiculous. If I’d cut a dado for some mixed stock and found out some of them were 1 & 1/3 instead of 1 & 1/2, I’d be pissed.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      For a dado, you’d better measure every board.

      But in reality, if you’re looking for a perfect fit for construction lumber, you’d also better let it dry out for a week before measuring and fitting, cause it was probably 1.5" soaking wet from the yard, and shrank a bunch.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Um, wait. I would think that violates some sort of law (but I guess maybe we haven’t codified this?). I mean, building plans expect standards in materials, right? So how can a building meet codes if the materials are not within the expected specs?

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m going to guess they can get away with this because 2x2s aren’t intended for structural use. I’ve never built one into a floor, wall or ceiling.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          To someone from central europe it’s always weird how houses get build from wood in the US. 😅 I imagine you can hear ~everything happening ~anywhere in the house?

            • n0m4n@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              I spent a few nights in a straw bale home, wanting to experience what they were like. They are incredibly quiet. Each bale is 1.5 ft of soundproofing/insulation. The loudest part of the house was the clock ticking. The house was heated by appliances such as the refrigerator and water heater. A local monastery built several to rent out for people wanting a tranquil contemplation.

          • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I want to say that stick-built homes are really not so fragile as people seem to think. There’s tradeoffs, of course, and ways to build them that make them uncomfortable at best and blatantly unsafe at worst. That being said, they’re pretty sturdy, fairly easy to repair and modify, and relatively quick and cheap to build.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            it’s extremely common for americans to dismiss apartments because they simply cannot fathom the idea of housing that actually blocks noise, it’s one of the primary arguments i see used against denser housing.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Furring strips are used in plenty of places, I provide one example where it is used in most residential homes to support drywall.

              Is it not structural if it’s holding ceiling drywall…? So why are people still bickering that walls aren’t structural when they still hold drywall up…?

              If it’s part of a code wall detail, would that not be structural…?

              What’s with the pedantism over something like this to try and save face over not knowing what a furring strip is?

              • OutsizedWalrus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                No, that’s is not structural.

                Structural means it’s intended to support and transfer loads in a way that cannot be safely removed.

                Since neither the furring strips or drywall are part of a structural requirement, they are not load bearing.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Drywall is structural, when used on block walls it helps provide lateral support.

                  This is why being pedantic usually backfires.

                  Drywall is inherently structural.

                  Regardless. It’s furring strips, you want to argue furring strips aren’t used in structural applications? They are used in all three applications the person said they haven’t used them in. They also claimed to be a wood wroker elsewhere, so I don’t see how they would use anything structural anyways….

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The 2x4s that have been sized this way do meet structural code. It was found that a full 2x4 is way over spec’d for what they were used for, so why bother wasting extra parts of the tree?

      Pretty much everything built with dimensional lumber in the last century has been done with undersized 2x4s, and it’s fine. The name stuck for historical reasons. Companies that build houses and order this stuff by the pallet all know what the real size is, and so do building inspectors.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Pretty much everything built with dimensional lumber in the last century has been done with undersized 2x4s, and it’s fine.

        It’s fine, folks. Nothing to see here.