No more placcy?

[Nemesis]

Hah, coming from the tosser in chief that's funny.

Struth - what a wit, eh? Em - same to you with knobs on and my dad's bigger etc etc?

Yes Biff, in the long term I think you are absolutely correct, and yes Jocelyn, there are problems. That's apart from the fact they look dreadful.

But the children on this forum know that really. It's this poor weather, they can't get out and play.

 

[Flyfisher]

As regards window frames, if you divide the cost by the number of years it lasts, you will find that oak (even when I make them) is much cheaper than uPVC.

I'm sure that's true, but what if you can't afford the initial outlay, which, I think, was the basis of Manks' point. I'm not sure I've seen 'affordable housing' being built with oak windows, even though it's cheaper in the long run.

Applying the 'oak window' principle, shouldn't we all be buying Rolls Royce motor cars, Leica cameras, Lobb shoes, Rolex watches and Holland & Holland shotguns on the basis that they'll all outlast the cheaper alternatives and, therefore, work out cheaper in the long run?

I'm not defending uPVC windows but there are certain economic realities that cannot be ignored.

 

[Nemesis]

Or possibly looking at 'greener' alternatives to uPVC?

What may be cheap at the point of delivery for the developer in the wider sense is costing us all.

Biff's windows are individually made craftsman pieces. The oak isn't really the largest cost, it's the hand manufacture which is the big part of the cost I guess. That plus the fact he fits them personally.

 

[Flyfisher]

Or possibly looking at 'greener' alternatives to uPVC?

I don't think 'greener' is the issue, it's affordability.
Any 'greener' suggestions that are no more expensive than uPVC?

 

[Nemesis]

I meant we could be looking into greener solutions. R and D.

And just how cheap is uPVC anyhow? Compared with wood?

http://www.aataylor.co.uk/page2.htm

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, uPVC must have something in its favour otherwise builders wouldn't use it. I don't for one minute believe that big builders and developers give two hoots about the materials they use, provided they meet the budget, the regulations and are what the buyer wants or is prepared to accept.

Give builders a cheaper, effective alternative and they'll use it. Seems like the 'green' industry is failing to do this.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh, I'm sure you are right. Some people will buy any old rubbish as long as it's cheap. And they are pretty gullible when it comes to the claims made by manufacturers.

Builders and developers don't give a damn about how long these things last. If a few bob can be saved, they will save it, and people in general are not looking for long life in a product. But maybe in future that can change.

'Green industry'? Interesting idea.

 

[Flyfisher]

Oh, I'm sure you are right. Some people will buy any old rubbish as long as it's cheap.

Perhaps because it's all they can afford?

 

[Nemesis]

Not always.

I wonder how much is saved in reality?

Have you any costings for new housing developments (although I suspect most uPVC applications are replacement windows)?

 

[Flyfisher]

Not always.

Yes, that's what I said (in reply to your 'some people . . . ').

 

[Nemesis]

Have you any costings?

Aesthetic appeal is of course in the eye of the beholder, but is maybe not so easy to quantify.

http://www.georgiangroup.org.uk/docs/cases/index.php?id=3:62:0:0

 

[Flyfisher]

Have you any costings?

Of course not. I'm making the assumption that the market makes the correct economic decision. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

As for aesthetics, I've never seen a uPVC window that I've actually liked - in any building - but based on the apparent popularity of uPVC it seems that's not a problem.

 

[Nemesis]

I rather suspect that the market makes the decison based on the idea that large numbers of people have been conned by the marketing bumph re uPVC and not having to maintain it. So as with so much else in life, if it's pushed and promoted enough many will fall for it, and consider it desirable.

 

[Flyfisher]

If that's really the case then perhaps the damage will be self limiting because, presumably, the market won't be conned a second time as the real economics of uPVC become apparent. We can live in hope.

 

[biffvernon]

I'm not impressed by arguements about poverty driving the uPVC trade. I see too many smart cars parked outside plastic windows and too many home cinemas flickering through plastic windows to buy that one. No, it's just down to bad taste and a disregard for the better things of life. If people were less well off but knwe better they would look after their old windows instead of replacing them.

 

[Manks]

shouldn't we all be buying Rolls Royce motor cars, Leica cameras, Lobb shoes, Rolex watches and Holland & Holland shotguns on the basis that they'll all outlast the cheaper alternatives and, therefore, work out cheaper in the long run?

You've lost me. Don't we all buy these things anyway? Certainly Nemesis does and so therefore should everyone else. She apparently also has her ivory tower repaired using real ivory. Recycled of course.

UPVC windows can be supplied and fitted in a starter house for about £200 per unit. Once installed they will need nothing whatsoever doing to them for at least 25 years. Maybe a good deal longer. Oak windows would cost what? £1000 per unit? Will they last five times longer? Hmmmmm I am sure Biff would say so. Will they require refinishing every five years? I don't know but they will certainly require more maintenance.

If all new houses were required to have no plastic in them as from Monday, who is going to subsidise the purchase price required to cover costs?

Manks

 

[bower1]

I'm afraid that my second set of wooden doors (in 6 months) are leaking today.

It would be very hard for me to not consider plastic ones, which in my experience, last at least a few months longer!

At this moment in time I've had enough of wind and rain and trying to do the right thing.

 

[Moo]

If I remember rightly, in one of the blessed Terry Pratchett's novels Captain Vimes came to the conclusion that only the rich could afford really old clothes. The poor (like him) could only afford the cheap&cheerful, which wore out very quickly and had to be replaced regularly.

Although we're not on the breadline we have to manage on a limited income, so have had to compromise on a lot of the things we've bought for our house. Luckily all the windows were ok (and, being listed, we couldn't have used placcy replacements even if we'd wanted to), but things like door handles and light fittings were perforce B&Q's cheapest. We inherited a couple of nasty modern doors as well, but can't afford to replace them with tailor-made wooden ones.

Isn't there an old saying about cutting coats according to the available cloth?

 

[Flyfisher]

No, it's just down to bad taste and a disregard for the better things of life.

Well, that's the problem with freedom isn't it? People do what they bl**dy well want with it.

 

[Moo]

Well, that's the problem with freedom isn't it? People do what they bl**dy well want with it.

'East Enders' et al ... 'I'm a Celebrity' ... battery chickens ... deep-fried Mars Bars ... over-amplified pop music ...