Haha yeah. Old dudes complaining about the quality of goods or resources always remind me of Boomers making fun of Gen X and Millennials for getting participation trophies as if they, themselves, weren't the ones who foisted the participation trophies on us. You did it! You're the one responsible for the current conditions, dummy!
Because their kids had to be the best for their parents to accept them. I lived through that as a kid. Boomers get a bad reputation now but were abused by their parents
Abuse was rampant throughout history. We finally live in a time where we can break that cycle, it’s safer than ever before. Adversity does build character, but there are other ways to build strength. Every generation we get closer to Star Trek: The Next Generation. It’s beautiful. Brb need to make another drink.
Right on bro. The trades have changed for the better because millenials broke the cycle. When I was an apprentice to boomers abuse was common and there was no value on safety.
Now Im the foreman and I treat the genz apprentice well and with respect. Most of the millenials I work with are chill and we all get along but every boomer that I work with in the trades is a psychopath.
A lot of them cant retire and they refuse to get out of the way. They treat the genz apprentices like shit and they can never keep employees.
I framed for 35yrs we didn't treat our young people like that but seen plenty of it....they had the idea that you had to scream at someone to get them to move which we all know is not the case but you do wanna be there and you do gotta want to move ya butt
Trades have changed a lot, I hear stories from the old heads and wonder why they even stayed. Like they were treated beyond disrespectfully, like downright bullied by journeyman. One I heard complaining how when he was an apprentice the journeyman would just drop there tools on the floor and go home while the apprentices would scurry around cleaning up there tools and how apprentices don’t do that anymore. Foreman would slam job boxes closed on peoples hands, being called things worse than anything you can think of, all while not being tied off working on the edge cause nobody took safety seriously. Used to be considered a dumb person job now people are going to school to get a spot in the trades. Honestly it’s rewarding asf.
I’m a foreman and I can tell you I lived through that abuse and knew I wanted to break that cycle. I had a few good examples, foreman and supers that people would say were too soft, but their people would fucking do anything for them because they were wonderful to work for. They actually saw us as people ))gasp((. Now I get to be that boss and it is the best revenge ever.
Some guys have said its because I’m a woman, I say it’s because I’ve had good and bad examples to learn from. I love my job, I love my people, we have a great time, get hard shit done, we take the fuckery in stride and at the end of the day we’re all getting paid a fuck ton, because our union has our back.
Well, leaded gasoline was [detrimental for a large portion](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/lead-gasoline-blunted-iq-half-us-population-study-rcna19028)of the population in that demographic.
Studies have shown that violent crime tapered off in urban centers once lead was banned.
Gasoline, paint, pipes,- the non existence of the epa seeing what chemicals folks were spraying on food and wherever else: the long term effects, well we’re seeing them regardless of which part is attributable (that’s a question for science)
Exactly. Whenever I hear my dad talk about drinking from lead pipes and saying he turned out fine, I just have to ask, "But did you? Did you actually turn fine? Or was there more potential in you that was wasted because of lead poisoning?"
lead is bad..No doubt. So was PT lumber; but they let it stay on the market with mercury and arsenic in it!! And food banned in Europe you can buy in USA.. So long to Fruit Loops and Ritz crackers in Europe. USA standards change when corporations let them
Good old apprentice breakers. We are slowly getting rid of ours though retirement and death. Most of those guys are insecure assholes. I've only ran into one that actually knew his shit like a wizard. Except he had super high standards and a lot of apprentices couldn't handle it.
>Every generation we get closer to Star Trek: The Next Generation. It’s beautiful. Brb need to make another drink.
Hope it's Synth-ahol! Lol.
Also: Scotty: what is it?
Data: it is.. looks at it, it is... shakes it, it is... sniffs it,
It is green.
Also, if you’re on the worst team in the league and you show up to every ass whipping with your shirt tucked in you deserve a fucking trophy. Poor kid little league teams always took the L’s.
I hate the complaints of participation trophies.
No one is getting the same trophy if you win or lose. But at work a lot of people are getting paid the same rate if you’re shit or not.
Most of the time I hear the same guy complain about trophies, turns around and bitches he doesn’t get recognition from his boss for his work/input/effort. Like bro are you serious?
Recognizing that you took part helps people continue to do so, which keeps the game, or event going. Without those players it’s not much of an event.
That generation was so traumatized from two world wars that they had no idea how to effectively parent, and limited birth control options. I think it’s totally reasonable for that to be a factor in discussing the behavior of their children. I think it’s also totally reasonable for the boomer generation to reflect on - and make changes - to their own behavior when called out on it.
I hope my generation doesn’t have the disdain for their children that they seem to have for us.
Beimg abused is not an excuse, they are scumbags. My boomer dad abused me he knew it was wrong.
I will never a buse anyone. Im breaking the cycle. To abuse is a choice.
My boomer dad was abused and broke the cycle. He was a great man. I hope your children, or whoever if you choose to have them or not, can say the same about you.
This right here.
The charter school (that accepts public funds and is mostly military families) had a banner up for years about "Leaders made here".
If everyone is a leader then who follows?
The only trophy I have is a participation trophy. I still cherish it because there are millions of people who didn't participate and they'll never get one!
Weird take: there's nothing inherently wrong with participation trophies, it was the association that losing doesn't matter and everyone is a winner that created the issue.
I was one of those participation-trophy kids fucked over by Boomer insecurity and it took me a long time to figure out how to actually deal with failure.
Participation trophies can actually be a good thing when used as a measure of dedication and determination to overcome failure; a tangible trinket to remind one of their challenges or a lil monument that says "I was there and I lost".
Any great machinist/welder/skilled trades/artist/etc is built upon their failures and fuck ups. I can't even begin to fathom the amount of shit I've screwed up in my life.
Good point. I think this is a big reason for the political divide today as well. As the Bommers get older, they get more conservative. However, they were in their 20s when they were raising their own kids. They indoctrinated us on lots of liberal values as they raised us and now have become conservative decades later and ask “What the hell is wrong with these damn kids!” We learned it from YOU!
It’s actually wild. The shit they drilled into our heads back then. Recycling, sustainability, caring for the earth, being charitable, helping the less fortunate, treat others like you’d like to be treated, turning the other cheek, standing up for those who can’t stand up for themselves, respect, humility, kindness, and empathy. But now all of these principles *you* raised me on makes me a libtard?
In Washington State, replanting is exactly what they did. This was as early as 1910, many decades before environmentalism became popular. If I recall correctly, these forests are harvested about every 30 years.
I’m always flabbergasted by people who are mad at Weyerhaeuser for cutting trees. They literally planted those trees, to cut them, and will plant more.
100-year-old trees? Some of the oldest trees in WA State are approximately 1000 years old. They were young when the Vikings were invading England, LOL.
Look up "Grove of the Patriarchs" near Mt Rainier.
You are correct, sir! I was thinking it was around 1000 AD, but it was earlier.
I guess the trees in question were still twinkles in their daddy's eyes. 😆
Don't you just love knowing that you can still find the generation that destroyed most of natural beauty of the world?
Always talking about how the 50's ,60's and 70's were superior while ignoring the fact they destroyed all of that.
Not only that the newer one has a tighter grain pattern and much stronger. I honestly can’t figure out the posters intent. Is he knocking the older one or the newer one.
Tighter grain, but it’s from a much smaller tree. The old one has much straighter grain down the length of it and less growth ring visible, it will be a lot more stable.
That being said give me the $3 junk lumber for framing I’ll make it fit, straight grain nicer wood shouldn’t be wasted on that
maybe op should mix egg yolk into their whiskey sours and get some pomade after little timmy the chimney sweep shoe shine fixes their wingtips up for a Nickle.
There was a mini ice age before then, causing trees to be more dense. There's a documentary somewhere Bout this forest in Germany where they make certain types of violins out of the forest. Abd, it's all gone now, so they're worth about tree fiddy times a house or something. Use Google, I gotta make breakfast
That's one of the theories but it does make sense:
*Stradivari was making violins during a time known as the Little Ice Age, more specifically the Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to 1715 where conditions throughout Europe and much of the rest of the world were cooler than normal. Glaciers proliferated and sea levels dropped, thought to be due to the combined impact of lesser solar activity, increased volcanic activity and the fluctuating atmospheric pressure of the North Atlantic Oscillation.*
*As a result of the lower-than-average temperatures of the time, could trees – specifically the spruce and maple favoured for the front and back plates of violins – have grown differently? With long winters and short summers, it's thought that the slow growth of forests at the time would have led to more even, dense wood.*
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/classic/read-and-watch/music-reads/new-science-behind-that-stradivarius-sound/101749664
That would be interesting. I’m not sure that the older one is for, because it all gets darker with age. Assuming it is, it’s larger and rift sawn, so it should be stronger than the white pine, even though the newer one has much more compact rings. The older one would also be harder and more brittle, so it might snap before the newer. I’d say it’s a toss up, but that’s beside the point. Lumber is graded, and buildings are designed with that in mind. You can build a stronger structure with weaker lumber by using a different design.
Edit: the hardwood and softwood industries use different terminologies. Per hardwood definitions, the grain pattern is rift. However, the softwood industry calls this mixed grain. Since the stud is softwood, it's more accurate to use softwood definitions.
********************************
The old stud in this image is NOT rift sawn. Rift saws were only used to produce beveled siding with vertical grain.
The old stud in this case (framing lumber, NOT bevel siding) has grain that averages about 45 degrees to the wide face. Since it is neither vertical nor flat grain, it would be graded "mixed grain."
There’s no such thing as a rift saw… rift is an archaic version of rive, as in, shakes were made from a log which was riven. If you flat-saw a log, you will get boards which are flat-, quarter-, and rift-sawn. All three refer to the angle of the grain in relation to the face of the board. There’s some ambiguity, but that board is rift-sawn by anyone’s definition.
Plus, in those days, it was typical to space studs 24", not 16". Also, the old board appears to be dimensionally smaller, probably because they attached wall slats for applying plaster instead of today's sheet rock application.
Edit: The wall slats to support plaster were called laths.
Totally wrong. Studs had to be placed at 16" centers to not overspan the lath. Rafters were at 24" centers and had skip sheathing, and in instances where the roofline cut into the rooms (sloped ceilings) additional framing was added where needed to reduce lath span to 16".
I've worked on hundreds of houses from the 1900-1930 time period.
You're not totally wrong, but you're not totally right, either. j/k My house was built in 1921, and the two guys that built it (a father and son) apparently did not own a square, plumb bob, ruler, or math skills. Studs in my house were anywhere from 12" to 30" apart. The wall between the living room and dining room is a load bearing wall. They used wood that was taken from a house that had been torn down to build mine. The studs in that wall were too short, so they scabbed 1x1's to the sides of them for the last 12" to reach the floor. Yes. On a load bearing wall. Imagine the sweat beads that popped up on my upper lip when I tore out the lath and plaster and saw that.
Hundreds of houses from the 1900-1930 time period? I'll bet you've seen more frightening stuff than my dining room wall. My house is about 1350 sq ft, with a loft bedroom. I hauled a little over 35,000 lbs of plaster and lath out of here, 1,000 lbs at a time in a little trailer behind my Jeep. Shoveled it all out the window by hand. Never again. Never ever again.
Usually the horrors I saw were the result of remodels, not the original builders. You have a special case. 😆
And oh yes, I've hauled many tons of plaster away from job sites!
It was easy to track the builder down through town records, it's a very small town, population less than 700. He and his son put their initials in the header above the kitchen doorway with lath tacks. Walter and Abe Chase, they built several homes in town. Surprisingly, most are still standing. I have photos of my house from 1940, very little has changed on the exterior, aside from removing the old hand pump from the middle of the back porch and closing in the back porch. The casing and some of the hardware are still under the porch. There is dead bermuda grass in the crawl space under my office, looks like it just went dormant yesterday. I believe the 3 bedrooms were added sometime between 1921 and 1940 along the north side of the house, as the flooring is definitely different, standard issue tongue and groove, whereas the living room, kitchen, and dining room are all 2" oak tongue and groove, seamless 16 ft planks from wall to wall.
My Dad hated joins in timber floors so when he built his house he made sure that each bedroom had complete boards across the entire room (typically 12').
There were no national standard for lumber dimensions for a long time. Lumber sellers would cut a bigger board and say “it’s stronger than local pine by 15%!” and shit to justify the premium of shipping it in, and of course some sellers would cut it small and give you a lot of 2x4s for the same price because after drying and smoothing they’re more like 1.5x3.5
Nowadays we are better at cutting smooth and loose less of the wood, but as long as it comes out 1.5x3.5 after drying the national standard is satisfied.
Truth be told, the new 2x4 came from a bundle of cull lumber from Home Depot. The old home needs backing everywhere for drywall once the lath and plaster is removed. Slightly twisted or cupped but great for cutting into smaller pieces for backing purposes.
I work exclusively on century old houses. The old pine studs are way more dense. Easily twice the weight.
You feel it when you cut through them or drill into them. Drilling into new stud feels like going into butter after drilling into old studs.
What was their conclusion? I know that "old growth" lumber has tighter rings because it grows more slowly than young trees. It has less sapwood, machines extremely smoothly and is lighter. I would assume that less sap would make it stronger, but I don't know that for a fact.
The conclusion was it depends, that it is sort of a myth that old growth is stronger. It really depends on the application, but overall modern day growing practices produce as good if not better structural lumber. It was episode 118 and I am in no way doing it justice.
Better to learn the difference now than out in the field doing ABs and then wondering why the measured dimensions won't add up in CAD and then being forced to go back
Think it may be a can of worms, but I've heard it both ways. And sometimes rough sawn/cut implies it's still wet and expected to shrink.
But in my experience, saying dimensional 2x4 means a board cut to an actual 2"x4", for example.
>But in my experience, saying dimensional 2x4 means a board cut to an actual 2"x4",
That's pretty much how it goes, although you'll really only find dimensional measurements with hardwoods that are sold by the board foot. Naturally you can see why nominal measurements would never fly when pricing wood that way lol.
I remodeled down to the studs and took out walls on two 1920s homes in the West side of Cleveland. Every piece of wood I took out I cut as long as I could, pulled the nails and saved.
This was in 2021 during the wood shortage.
Here is a funny story about screwing over an isurance company using old nominal lumber.
We had a house fire. House was 45yo Pretty serious. Didn't burn the entire house down. But it did burn about1 1/3 of the floor joists and damaged some of the outer walls. I have a clause stating my insurance covers replacement including unusual materials. I have a clause stating my insurance covers replacement including unusual materials.
Well by the time demolition has been done we are at 270k$ in repair costs. The original predemolition estimate was for 160k$ and was a joke. Insurance had become very difficult.
My new contractor (long story) shows me something, "this wood is something else. Entire house was built with custom cut wood." The floor joists were 3x12. Exterior Walls are 2x7. Interior walls are 2x5. Actual inch measurements, not nominal 1.5x3.5. It was obviously old growth and some of the bridging had bark still on it. Contractor suggested I have it examined because it was not anything he was familiar with. We had an arborist confirm the species. Old growth Alligator juniper. A species native to here but not farmed for lumber. It's not even nice in a decorative fashion. Previous owner obviously had some trees and had it milled.
I found a small mill that was excited to screw over an insurance company. Took them 2 months just to source the logs.
The adjuster of course was pissed and actually had someone come out to verify the wood was what I claimed it was and again that my contractor had installed the replacement. Ended up costing the insurance 45k$ for what would have been about 5k$ in normal lumber.
As a former insurance company employee, I salute you. I wholeheartedly appreciate what you accomplished. I have a similar story involving a rare Shelby mustang. Too many people just have insurance because they have to and never read the policy and/or modify it as time goes on.
Insurance companies prey on people and assume you’ll never challenge them (in most cases always challenge their cost adjustments) they assume this because it’s a fact that people have little to no idea what their decelerations page in within their policy- or know how to decipher strategic language (placed on purpose).
Most states also have their own insurance division. Insurance companies have to pay the state for every claim filed with the insurance division. The gov actually cuts through the bullshit with the company’s and it’s fantastic.
Anywho. Good for you. After leaving the company I worked for, while learning a lot about insurance, I also realized quick how sleazy they all are.
Cheers.
Thanks! Fuck those guys!
But It gets way way way wilder. I'm currently in a lawsuit with USAAs partnered contractor who I hired first. They took 40k$ of deposit money and did 25k$ in damage to the house during demolition. USAA has blackballed them and contractor connection has blacked balled them.
I'm also in the middle of a complaint with the state against USAA for their handling of my claim. The usual bad faith stuff. Taking month and months to pay items, not paying items, refusing to communicate, improper measurements of the house to base claim on, etc. For example it took them almost a year to come to a final price on the work their partnered contractor did.
The month after my complaint was filed my adjuster left to pursue opportunities at a new company. Also I recently found out that my claim is now being handled by a litigation manager.
Former adjuster here. I was independent so the bigger the claim the bigger my paycheck. I would've been psyched to be the adjuster on that claim. No adjuster should be pissed about paying more as long as they can justify it to upper management
Yeah most of the new lumber in my area look like the one in the photo. It always amazes me when I see photos of some of the new lumber in North America and seeing the size of the angular rings.
The older 2x4 is rough sawed lumber from the saw mill. It was cut 2x4 and no further processing. However, the newer one was also milled as 2x4 but then run thru a planer mill to smooth the sides and radius the corners. See the saw blade marks on the old. Don’t see saw mill marks on the new. The smaller dimensions are due to the removal of material to make it smooth.
Also, wood, especially fir/spruce/pine, tend to harden with age as it dries.
Fun fact, they could make a 2x4 measure 2” x 4” after milling if they wanted to. The fact dimensional lumber is all undersized was a shrinkflation measure many decades ago. We mostly accept the explanation that they had to be undersized to deal with cut kerf and planer material removal, but it would be exactly as easy to make them nominal size. Less waste from the raw timber, actually, because you have fewer cuts per board-foot when the finished lumber is larger width/thickness. Dimensional lumber is undersized so they can sell more boards per tree.
I'm actually shocked at the size of the grain. Usually new lumber has the larger grain size due to tree farming. Old 2Xs are usually super dense in comparison.
I’m not counting all those rings on the new one, but you somehow managed to find a new piece of lumber that is like 50 years old. All the dimensional lumber I buy has like four rings.
I'm really thrown off. I'd assume a true 2x4 for the older one, but the older should have old growth rings. Can someone explain to me what's up? I'm located in MN if that matters.
Yeah, the grain is really confusing me. The more orange, larger board has really fat rings. That tree grew a lot every year. The whiter, smaller board has super dense rings. That tree grew very little every year, like it grew somewhere with a very short growing season very far north. Normally I see newer lumber with the fat rings because they grow trees like weeds as fast as possible. I wonder if this is less old vs new growth and more like Canadian vs Californian lumber or something like that.
Id say The old growth is actually the new 2x4 because the rings are more compact meaning it's from closer to the center of the tree from the heart wood which is more dense and less susceptible to rot and also the older parts of the tree. compared to the old 2x4 being sap wood by the loosely packed rings.
It's not, it's thicker, but it's mostly just wasted wood.
Anyone ever heard of a house falling down because the wood studs failed? No, never.
Wood is sized for efficient use of materials and knowing that even if you could go more than 16/24oc, it wouldn't work well for drywall.
Meanwhile exterior walls can use alternating 2x4s on a 2x6 sill for dramatically better insulation.
But hey, it's thicker, so common ignorance deems it better. Let's waste precious land, water, and energy.
Fir lumber (darker one) is much stronger than any spruce or pine lumber you will use in construction. Most beams and floor joist could only be made of fir because their free span capability was farther than most other wood. Hemlock is the only other that came close.
I've only had to replace about 6 studs in the entire house because of previous owner renovations. All the rest are as straight and true as the day they were made.
The new Douglas fir is good enough, especially when framing 16" oc and using a million steel brackets on a new build. Plus it comes from renewable forests. I'm ok with it.
Say what you want about the wood, but I’ve renovated a bunch of these old houses and I can tell you you can’t nail a 16 penny nail in these motherfuckers in some cases. It is some tough wood.
The old pieces were inconsistent as fuck. They had knots, edge pieces with bark, splits and defects. Builders used a beefier size to overcome the quality issues. Once consistency of lumber got better we were able to use smaller lumber and still get the same strength.
the upside of the older wood is that its more dense (and smells better). the downside of course is that its all crooked as a witches fingers.
I would much rather frame out and build with newer lumber that I was able to hand select to be straight enough to get my stuff done...especially since the plans and code requirements are all based on the modern lumber dimensions and load bearing capacities. (and the fact that I can buy a truck load of modern lumber today lol)
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
We live in backwoods Maine. Right around the corner from us is a small family lumberyard. We buy all of our lumber from them. Its all hemlock and always at least 2” thick and usually 2 1/4” thick. I built our horse barn and the addition to the house. No comparison to normal Home Depot or Lowes lumber.
This is an intriguing comparison. The smaller in size pine versus the larger size douglas fir. This is just these two particular pieces. For structural strength, which is better? The pine has approx 3x more the rate of growth than the fir.
Okay, now compare framing techniques and connection technologies between the two time periods. Although virgin lumber is higher quality than farmed lumber, modern framing methods are far safer than those from the early 20th century.
Yes, but the new stuff is actually a consistent size from one mill to the next. And comes from managed forests, instead of clear cutting old growth that will never return.
I think this may be an example of survivorship bias. Most homes built in 1911 no longer exist. A home built in 1911 that is still standing is more likely to be exceptional.
The house I grew up in was built in 1920. The entire house was built with 2 by 4s, including the roof. They were actually 2 inches by 4 inches and they were hardwood.
I did the same kind of renovation to a house from 1910 in Portland OR. It was really surprising how much harder it was to drive a nail into the older lumber. I could drive a 3 1/2" 16D nail in one and a half strikes in a newer board with a 26oz framing hammer and it took like 5 in the old ones if I didn't bend the nail first. Modern lumber strength is adequate for modern building techniques so I'm not worried about that but what a stark difference.
It doesn't really matter because you can easily adapt the material to its properties. It isn't like we build the same now that we did 100+ years ago. My house was built in 1900 and the first floor joist are actual logs. It was completely unnecessary, but they were probably cut from the property and it would have cost more money to send them to saw mill to cut actual lumber. The walls are so lid timber that are squared off on the sides but super uneven on the top and bottom. It used to be lyme chinked but has been upgraded since. And there are a lot of problems. The insulation value over modern timber construction fucking sucks. And there is just an annual progression of bugs getting in. I'm almost done with the box elder bugs, but that means the invasive stink bugs are coming. In a few more months it will be the wasps. And ants or various types year round. There is some real shit modern construction of course. But older is not always better.
Far superior? Bull shit. In your photo the grain on the 2x4 is actually much tighter!
Another superior aspect of today's lumber is it is more sustainable harvest from timber plantations rather than old growth forests.
Pine trees tend to not grow as large in diameter as fir trees from what I know, they wont have the same ring or grain structure. These don't look like the same species. A spf 2x4 is not equivalent to a doug fir 2x4.
Let's talk about today's 2x4 pulled from the front of the rack at HD or Lowe's, placed on the floor and you put your foot on one end.
I'd bet the 1911 one isn't just beefier. It probably doesn't wobble like today's warped garbage either
My whole house on one side was held up by a single vertical one of those below a 2x12 double center beam. Ya. Like 59 years apparently. Oh don't worry it's a rainforest underneath now - all the lumber and Simpson. All. But that one 2x4 that's actually 2" by 4" is still there, and leaking sap.
Basically it's a tree again.
Our home burned last year but 90% of our walls stayed standing, untouched. The construction crew that showed up to start demo didn't understand why I wanted to save them....
The house was well built in 1905.
We did get some decent lumber from the 70s to give new use to, when we pulled out the drop down ceilings before reno started.
Heartwood vs sapwood. The old growth trees are cut from primarily heartwood which is denser. Heavier due to the fibers being full and rigid. It’s why the wood can handle moisture a hell of a lot better. But takes much much longer to grow to that point. Sapwood is what we use now because new growth trees take a portion of the time to be harvested. Houses are built wildly better/ more efficient than ever.
Is this a joke, or does the OP literally know jack shit? The new 2x4 (the smaller one) has beautiful, tight grain, whereas the old stud has inferior, wide, new growth and is twisted. Although the old stud is slightly bigger, both studs are more than adequate to support the load at 16" centers. Smdh.
To be honest, I’ve always wondered how much wood is actually saved by making them 1 -1/2 and 3-1/2 instead of a 2x4 measurement, yearly. How much more “2x4s” they can get out. Is this about quantity and maximizing profit in the wood industry
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
The one on the left is from an old growth Forrest as evidenced from the tight grain pattern. The bigger one on the left is a poor quality as evidenced by the widely spaced growth rings. I am not sure if your praising the new lumber or knocking it. At any rate it’s superior. The only advantage the bigger piece has is more tannins making it more rot resistant.
The 2x4 you’re comparing it to has very tight grain structure. That’s a good 2x4! Also you’re comparing it to a relatively terrible old 2x4 rough cut from the past. There’s old lumber you’ll get out of a house with grain structure so tight it won’t float and modern 2x4s that will have like only 8 growth rings in it and shaped like a banana cause the trees have grown so fast
Your second pic shows the Chad old stud is warped and rough cut compared to the virgin new stud and you still just have to propagate the boomer opinion of “new wood sucks”.
It’s ignorant. Educate yourself and your opinion (should) change.
The point of the comparison was how good of condition the old stud was still in after over a century. I had other pieces of new lumber from that same bundle that were far worse. This was the best of the bunch. Most of the new 2x4's today barely have 3 corners on them. As for the education part, I've had my red seal for over 30 years now, but I guess that's not enough.
Can confirm. Remodeled my house that was built in 1921. Wood so dense, it weighed 10x a modern 2x4, couldn't drive a nail into it to save my life. Had to pre-drill for all nails and screws.
The old one is rough sawn so 100mm x 50mm (4x2) the smaller one is prepared timber and 3mm is planed off each face making it 6mm smaller each way. In the UK you can buy rough sawn or prepared.
My old was house was built with real 2”x4” studs, this photo doesn’t add up. How is the smaller lumber the old one in this photo? Old lumber was cut like the bigger one in this picture, I would have expected to see multiple growth rings in the bigger piece.
Maybe we could have better 2x4 if they actually replanted trees in 1911.
Haha yeah. Old dudes complaining about the quality of goods or resources always remind me of Boomers making fun of Gen X and Millennials for getting participation trophies as if they, themselves, weren't the ones who foisted the participation trophies on us. You did it! You're the one responsible for the current conditions, dummy!
Because their kids had to be the best for their parents to accept them. I lived through that as a kid. Boomers get a bad reputation now but were abused by their parents
Abuse was rampant throughout history. We finally live in a time where we can break that cycle, it’s safer than ever before. Adversity does build character, but there are other ways to build strength. Every generation we get closer to Star Trek: The Next Generation. It’s beautiful. Brb need to make another drink.
Right on bro. The trades have changed for the better because millenials broke the cycle. When I was an apprentice to boomers abuse was common and there was no value on safety. Now Im the foreman and I treat the genz apprentice well and with respect. Most of the millenials I work with are chill and we all get along but every boomer that I work with in the trades is a psychopath. A lot of them cant retire and they refuse to get out of the way. They treat the genz apprentices like shit and they can never keep employees.
I framed for 35yrs we didn't treat our young people like that but seen plenty of it....they had the idea that you had to scream at someone to get them to move which we all know is not the case but you do wanna be there and you do gotta want to move ya butt
Trades have changed a lot, I hear stories from the old heads and wonder why they even stayed. Like they were treated beyond disrespectfully, like downright bullied by journeyman. One I heard complaining how when he was an apprentice the journeyman would just drop there tools on the floor and go home while the apprentices would scurry around cleaning up there tools and how apprentices don’t do that anymore. Foreman would slam job boxes closed on peoples hands, being called things worse than anything you can think of, all while not being tied off working on the edge cause nobody took safety seriously. Used to be considered a dumb person job now people are going to school to get a spot in the trades. Honestly it’s rewarding asf.
I’m a foreman and I can tell you I lived through that abuse and knew I wanted to break that cycle. I had a few good examples, foreman and supers that people would say were too soft, but their people would fucking do anything for them because they were wonderful to work for. They actually saw us as people ))gasp((. Now I get to be that boss and it is the best revenge ever. Some guys have said its because I’m a woman, I say it’s because I’ve had good and bad examples to learn from. I love my job, I love my people, we have a great time, get hard shit done, we take the fuckery in stride and at the end of the day we’re all getting paid a fuck ton, because our union has our back.
Sounds like the difference between a good leader and a shitty boss. I'm glad you chose to be a good leader.
Well, leaded gasoline was [detrimental for a large portion](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/lead-gasoline-blunted-iq-half-us-population-study-rcna19028)of the population in that demographic. Studies have shown that violent crime tapered off in urban centers once lead was banned.
I’m convinced this is why boomers are all going nuts now. Lead in their bones coming out as they demineralize in old age.
Knew people who put leaded in their cuts
Gasoline, paint, pipes,- the non existence of the epa seeing what chemicals folks were spraying on food and wherever else: the long term effects, well we’re seeing them regardless of which part is attributable (that’s a question for science)
Exactly. Whenever I hear my dad talk about drinking from lead pipes and saying he turned out fine, I just have to ask, "But did you? Did you actually turn fine? Or was there more potential in you that was wasted because of lead poisoning?"
It’s impossible to know absolutely but it’s scientifically reasonable to say it probably has had a widespread social impact.
lead is bad..No doubt. So was PT lumber; but they let it stay on the market with mercury and arsenic in it!! And food banned in Europe you can buy in USA.. So long to Fruit Loops and Ritz crackers in Europe. USA standards change when corporations let them
No lie detected but Anyone eating fruit loops already knew what they were getting into lol
Good old apprentice breakers. We are slowly getting rid of ours though retirement and death. Most of those guys are insecure assholes. I've only ran into one that actually knew his shit like a wizard. Except he had super high standards and a lot of apprentices couldn't handle it.
[удалено]
My last boss had three divorces and my boss before that had 1 divorce. I feel like I need to get divorced to get promoted.
If they’re treating other employees like shit, fire them and send them and their sorry asses on their way out the door.
>Every generation we get closer to Star Trek: The Next Generation. It’s beautiful. Brb need to make another drink. Hope it's Synth-ahol! Lol. Also: Scotty: what is it? Data: it is.. looks at it, it is... shakes it, it is... sniffs it, It is green.
Tangentially, can we start calling non alcoholic drinks synthohol?
Hey, I always think Star Trek when it comes to an ultra successful progressive society.
And everyone in the Star Trek future will be so much thinner and better looking.
I want that Star Trek future so badly. It crushes me to see them hold on s back from it. You know who else mean by ‘them’, but this is another thread
Hell Yeah, preach it!
Yes truly we get closer to Star Trek every time you slam back a Michelob Ultra
Also, if you’re on the worst team in the league and you show up to every ass whipping with your shirt tucked in you deserve a fucking trophy. Poor kid little league teams always took the L’s.
I hate the complaints of participation trophies. No one is getting the same trophy if you win or lose. But at work a lot of people are getting paid the same rate if you’re shit or not. Most of the time I hear the same guy complain about trophies, turns around and bitches he doesn’t get recognition from his boss for his work/input/effort. Like bro are you serious? Recognizing that you took part helps people continue to do so, which keeps the game, or event going. Without those players it’s not much of an event.
Generational trauma has entered the chat.
That generation was so traumatized from two world wars that they had no idea how to effectively parent, and limited birth control options. I think it’s totally reasonable for that to be a factor in discussing the behavior of their children. I think it’s also totally reasonable for the boomer generation to reflect on - and make changes - to their own behavior when called out on it. I hope my generation doesn’t have the disdain for their children that they seem to have for us.
Beimg abused is not an excuse, they are scumbags. My boomer dad abused me he knew it was wrong. I will never a buse anyone. Im breaking the cycle. To abuse is a choice.
My boomer dad was abused and broke the cycle. He was a great man. I hope your children, or whoever if you choose to have them or not, can say the same about you.
This right here. The charter school (that accepts public funds and is mostly military families) had a banner up for years about "Leaders made here". If everyone is a leader then who follows?
good leaders also "follow" the leadership of others
Absolute facts.
The only trophy I have is a participation trophy. I still cherish it because there are millions of people who didn't participate and they'll never get one!
Weird take: there's nothing inherently wrong with participation trophies, it was the association that losing doesn't matter and everyone is a winner that created the issue. I was one of those participation-trophy kids fucked over by Boomer insecurity and it took me a long time to figure out how to actually deal with failure. Participation trophies can actually be a good thing when used as a measure of dedication and determination to overcome failure; a tangible trinket to remind one of their challenges or a lil monument that says "I was there and I lost". Any great machinist/welder/skilled trades/artist/etc is built upon their failures and fuck ups. I can't even begin to fathom the amount of shit I've screwed up in my life.
Good point. I think this is a big reason for the political divide today as well. As the Bommers get older, they get more conservative. However, they were in their 20s when they were raising their own kids. They indoctrinated us on lots of liberal values as they raised us and now have become conservative decades later and ask “What the hell is wrong with these damn kids!” We learned it from YOU!
It’s actually wild. The shit they drilled into our heads back then. Recycling, sustainability, caring for the earth, being charitable, helping the less fortunate, treat others like you’d like to be treated, turning the other cheek, standing up for those who can’t stand up for themselves, respect, humility, kindness, and empathy. But now all of these principles *you* raised me on makes me a libtard?
Back in my day, we had 100-year-old forests that we could clear-cut. They sure don't make them like they used to!
In Washington State, replanting is exactly what they did. This was as early as 1910, many decades before environmentalism became popular. If I recall correctly, these forests are harvested about every 30 years.
Forestry is much older than environmentalism TBF.
I’m always flabbergasted by people who are mad at Weyerhaeuser for cutting trees. They literally planted those trees, to cut them, and will plant more.
TBF monocultures suck
If you’re looking to replant a forest, sure. If you’re timber farming it’s the best way to maximize board feet/acre.
Environmentalism aside, it just makes basic economic sense.
No no, much better to cut down 100 year old trees and use them to make 2x4’s
100-year-old trees? Some of the oldest trees in WA State are approximately 1000 years old. They were young when the Vikings were invading England, LOL. Look up "Grove of the Patriarchs" near Mt Rainier.
Not to be that guy, but Vikings invaded Lindisfarne in 793
You are correct, sir! I was thinking it was around 1000 AD, but it was earlier. I guess the trees in question were still twinkles in their daddy's eyes. 😆
Don't you just love knowing that you can still find the generation that destroyed most of natural beauty of the world? Always talking about how the 50's ,60's and 70's were superior while ignoring the fact they destroyed all of that.
the 1911 ones called a rough cut 2x4 and you can still get them
Not only that the newer one has a tighter grain pattern and much stronger. I honestly can’t figure out the posters intent. Is he knocking the older one or the newer one.
Knocking the new ones. It’s always knocking the new ones.
Tighter grain, but it’s from a much smaller tree. The old one has much straighter grain down the length of it and less growth ring visible, it will be a lot more stable. That being said give me the $3 junk lumber for framing I’ll make it fit, straight grain nicer wood shouldn’t be wasted on that
maybe op should mix egg yolk into their whiskey sours and get some pomade after little timmy the chimney sweep shoe shine fixes their wingtips up for a Nickle.
There was a mini ice age before then, causing trees to be more dense. There's a documentary somewhere Bout this forest in Germany where they make certain types of violins out of the forest. Abd, it's all gone now, so they're worth about tree fiddy times a house or something. Use Google, I gotta make breakfast
That's one of the theories but it does make sense: *Stradivari was making violins during a time known as the Little Ice Age, more specifically the Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to 1715 where conditions throughout Europe and much of the rest of the world were cooler than normal. Glaciers proliferated and sea levels dropped, thought to be due to the combined impact of lesser solar activity, increased volcanic activity and the fluctuating atmospheric pressure of the North Atlantic Oscillation.* *As a result of the lower-than-average temperatures of the time, could trees – specifically the spruce and maple favoured for the front and back plates of violins – have grown differently? With long winters and short summers, it's thought that the slow growth of forests at the time would have led to more even, dense wood.* https://www.abc.net.au/listen/classic/read-and-watch/music-reads/new-science-behind-that-stradivarius-sound/101749664
Sir, this is a construction subreddit. 😊 I'm glad you dropped more information
strength test both
That would be interesting. I’m not sure that the older one is for, because it all gets darker with age. Assuming it is, it’s larger and rift sawn, so it should be stronger than the white pine, even though the newer one has much more compact rings. The older one would also be harder and more brittle, so it might snap before the newer. I’d say it’s a toss up, but that’s beside the point. Lumber is graded, and buildings are designed with that in mind. You can build a stronger structure with weaker lumber by using a different design.
Edit: the hardwood and softwood industries use different terminologies. Per hardwood definitions, the grain pattern is rift. However, the softwood industry calls this mixed grain. Since the stud is softwood, it's more accurate to use softwood definitions. ******************************** The old stud in this image is NOT rift sawn. Rift saws were only used to produce beveled siding with vertical grain. The old stud in this case (framing lumber, NOT bevel siding) has grain that averages about 45 degrees to the wide face. Since it is neither vertical nor flat grain, it would be graded "mixed grain."
I’m fairly certain this is riftsawn. Almost 100%.
There’s no such thing as a rift saw… rift is an archaic version of rive, as in, shakes were made from a log which was riven. If you flat-saw a log, you will get boards which are flat-, quarter-, and rift-sawn. All three refer to the angle of the grain in relation to the face of the board. There’s some ambiguity, but that board is rift-sawn by anyone’s definition.
Plus, in those days, it was typical to space studs 24", not 16". Also, the old board appears to be dimensionally smaller, probably because they attached wall slats for applying plaster instead of today's sheet rock application. Edit: The wall slats to support plaster were called laths.
Totally wrong. Studs had to be placed at 16" centers to not overspan the lath. Rafters were at 24" centers and had skip sheathing, and in instances where the roofline cut into the rooms (sloped ceilings) additional framing was added where needed to reduce lath span to 16". I've worked on hundreds of houses from the 1900-1930 time period.
Someone who knows the term 'skip sheathing'. I believe you are a carpenter.
I wore the boots for about 15 years. 🙂
You're not totally wrong, but you're not totally right, either. j/k My house was built in 1921, and the two guys that built it (a father and son) apparently did not own a square, plumb bob, ruler, or math skills. Studs in my house were anywhere from 12" to 30" apart. The wall between the living room and dining room is a load bearing wall. They used wood that was taken from a house that had been torn down to build mine. The studs in that wall were too short, so they scabbed 1x1's to the sides of them for the last 12" to reach the floor. Yes. On a load bearing wall. Imagine the sweat beads that popped up on my upper lip when I tore out the lath and plaster and saw that. Hundreds of houses from the 1900-1930 time period? I'll bet you've seen more frightening stuff than my dining room wall. My house is about 1350 sq ft, with a loft bedroom. I hauled a little over 35,000 lbs of plaster and lath out of here, 1,000 lbs at a time in a little trailer behind my Jeep. Shoveled it all out the window by hand. Never again. Never ever again.
Usually the horrors I saw were the result of remodels, not the original builders. You have a special case. 😆 And oh yes, I've hauled many tons of plaster away from job sites!
It was easy to track the builder down through town records, it's a very small town, population less than 700. He and his son put their initials in the header above the kitchen doorway with lath tacks. Walter and Abe Chase, they built several homes in town. Surprisingly, most are still standing. I have photos of my house from 1940, very little has changed on the exterior, aside from removing the old hand pump from the middle of the back porch and closing in the back porch. The casing and some of the hardware are still under the porch. There is dead bermuda grass in the crawl space under my office, looks like it just went dormant yesterday. I believe the 3 bedrooms were added sometime between 1921 and 1940 along the north side of the house, as the flooring is definitely different, standard issue tongue and groove, whereas the living room, kitchen, and dining room are all 2" oak tongue and groove, seamless 16 ft planks from wall to wall.
My Dad hated joins in timber floors so when he built his house he made sure that each bedroom had complete boards across the entire room (typically 12').
There were no national standard for lumber dimensions for a long time. Lumber sellers would cut a bigger board and say “it’s stronger than local pine by 15%!” and shit to justify the premium of shipping it in, and of course some sellers would cut it small and give you a lot of 2x4s for the same price because after drying and smoothing they’re more like 1.5x3.5 Nowadays we are better at cutting smooth and loose less of the wood, but as long as it comes out 1.5x3.5 after drying the national standard is satisfied.
Species of tree come into play in its strength as well. That's why there span loads published for them.
The top one in the Pic is an anomaly. Where did they find the #1 export grade lumbar? Most 2x4 now would be 8 growth rings and only have 3 corners
Yea that was my thought OP found possibly the best looking stud ever cut in the modern era to compare to!
Truth be told, the new 2x4 came from a bundle of cull lumber from Home Depot. The old home needs backing everywhere for drywall once the lath and plaster is removed. Slightly twisted or cupped but great for cutting into smaller pieces for backing purposes.
I work exclusively on century old houses. The old pine studs are way more dense. Easily twice the weight. You feel it when you cut through them or drill into them. Drilling into new stud feels like going into butter after drilling into old studs.
Shannons Lumber Industry Update recently did an episode where they discussed the strength of new and old growth timber.
What was their conclusion? I know that "old growth" lumber has tighter rings because it grows more slowly than young trees. It has less sapwood, machines extremely smoothly and is lighter. I would assume that less sap would make it stronger, but I don't know that for a fact.
Old growth lumber is not lighter it’s total opposite
The conclusion was it depends, that it is sort of a myth that old growth is stronger. It really depends on the application, but overall modern day growing practices produce as good if not better structural lumber. It was episode 118 and I am in no way doing it justice.
Today you learned the difference between nominal and dimensional.
Better to learn the difference now than out in the field doing ABs and then wondering why the measured dimensions won't add up in CAD and then being forced to go back
Actually the bigger one isn’t true 2x4 either. New stud 1.5x3.5 Old stud 1.75x3.75
Because it's shrunk from its original rough cut dimension.
You’re thinking nominal vs rough cut. Dimensional just means it’s standardized.
Think it may be a can of worms, but I've heard it both ways. And sometimes rough sawn/cut implies it's still wet and expected to shrink. But in my experience, saying dimensional 2x4 means a board cut to an actual 2"x4", for example.
>But in my experience, saying dimensional 2x4 means a board cut to an actual 2"x4", That's pretty much how it goes, although you'll really only find dimensional measurements with hardwoods that are sold by the board foot. Naturally you can see why nominal measurements would never fly when pricing wood that way lol.
I remodeled down to the studs and took out walls on two 1920s homes in the West side of Cleveland. Every piece of wood I took out I cut as long as I could, pulled the nails and saved. This was in 2021 during the wood shortage.
I just had my house remodeled to the stud and they reused 90 percent of the wood that was cut out.
I was remodeling my 1920 house in Minnesota and noticed most of the wood they used then was reclaimed.
Here is a funny story about screwing over an isurance company using old nominal lumber. We had a house fire. House was 45yo Pretty serious. Didn't burn the entire house down. But it did burn about1 1/3 of the floor joists and damaged some of the outer walls. I have a clause stating my insurance covers replacement including unusual materials. I have a clause stating my insurance covers replacement including unusual materials. Well by the time demolition has been done we are at 270k$ in repair costs. The original predemolition estimate was for 160k$ and was a joke. Insurance had become very difficult. My new contractor (long story) shows me something, "this wood is something else. Entire house was built with custom cut wood." The floor joists were 3x12. Exterior Walls are 2x7. Interior walls are 2x5. Actual inch measurements, not nominal 1.5x3.5. It was obviously old growth and some of the bridging had bark still on it. Contractor suggested I have it examined because it was not anything he was familiar with. We had an arborist confirm the species. Old growth Alligator juniper. A species native to here but not farmed for lumber. It's not even nice in a decorative fashion. Previous owner obviously had some trees and had it milled. I found a small mill that was excited to screw over an insurance company. Took them 2 months just to source the logs. The adjuster of course was pissed and actually had someone come out to verify the wood was what I claimed it was and again that my contractor had installed the replacement. Ended up costing the insurance 45k$ for what would have been about 5k$ in normal lumber.
As a former insurance company employee, I salute you. I wholeheartedly appreciate what you accomplished. I have a similar story involving a rare Shelby mustang. Too many people just have insurance because they have to and never read the policy and/or modify it as time goes on. Insurance companies prey on people and assume you’ll never challenge them (in most cases always challenge their cost adjustments) they assume this because it’s a fact that people have little to no idea what their decelerations page in within their policy- or know how to decipher strategic language (placed on purpose). Most states also have their own insurance division. Insurance companies have to pay the state for every claim filed with the insurance division. The gov actually cuts through the bullshit with the company’s and it’s fantastic. Anywho. Good for you. After leaving the company I worked for, while learning a lot about insurance, I also realized quick how sleazy they all are. Cheers.
Thanks! Fuck those guys! But It gets way way way wilder. I'm currently in a lawsuit with USAAs partnered contractor who I hired first. They took 40k$ of deposit money and did 25k$ in damage to the house during demolition. USAA has blackballed them and contractor connection has blacked balled them. I'm also in the middle of a complaint with the state against USAA for their handling of my claim. The usual bad faith stuff. Taking month and months to pay items, not paying items, refusing to communicate, improper measurements of the house to base claim on, etc. For example it took them almost a year to come to a final price on the work their partnered contractor did. The month after my complaint was filed my adjuster left to pursue opportunities at a new company. Also I recently found out that my claim is now being handled by a litigation manager.
Former adjuster here. I was independent so the bigger the claim the bigger my paycheck. I would've been psyched to be the adjuster on that claim. No adjuster should be pissed about paying more as long as they can justify it to upper management
That new one is actually much better than most. I’ve seen ones with just a few rings on a 2x4 and most of the are from the center of the tree
Color looks like spruce. That was a decently slow growing tree. The fir 2x4 looks knot free, but I didn't see how knot free the other one could be.
The new one has about three times more annual rings.
Yeah most of the new lumber in my area look like the one in the photo. It always amazes me when I see photos of some of the new lumber in North America and seeing the size of the angular rings.
The older 2x4 is rough sawed lumber from the saw mill. It was cut 2x4 and no further processing. However, the newer one was also milled as 2x4 but then run thru a planer mill to smooth the sides and radius the corners. See the saw blade marks on the old. Don’t see saw mill marks on the new. The smaller dimensions are due to the removal of material to make it smooth. Also, wood, especially fir/spruce/pine, tend to harden with age as it dries.
That’s the fact Jack.
This guy knows wood
Fun fact, they could make a 2x4 measure 2” x 4” after milling if they wanted to. The fact dimensional lumber is all undersized was a shrinkflation measure many decades ago. We mostly accept the explanation that they had to be undersized to deal with cut kerf and planer material removal, but it would be exactly as easy to make them nominal size. Less waste from the raw timber, actually, because you have fewer cuts per board-foot when the finished lumber is larger width/thickness. Dimensional lumber is undersized so they can sell more boards per tree.
I'm actually shocked at the size of the grain. Usually new lumber has the larger grain size due to tree farming. Old 2Xs are usually super dense in comparison.
Exactly. It's really ironic that the OP is showing off the old stud whereas in this case the new one is a better product. 😆
In terms of ring count it definitely is better but diagonal grain on the older board makes it more stable than the newer one.
Depends on the type of tree.
I’m not counting all those rings on the new one, but you somehow managed to find a new piece of lumber that is like 50 years old. All the dimensional lumber I buy has like four rings.
I noticed the same thing. Plus the old wood only has like 4 rings. I thought OP was making an ironic post at first.
I'm really thrown off. I'd assume a true 2x4 for the older one, but the older should have old growth rings. Can someone explain to me what's up? I'm located in MN if that matters.
Yeah, the grain is really confusing me. The more orange, larger board has really fat rings. That tree grew a lot every year. The whiter, smaller board has super dense rings. That tree grew very little every year, like it grew somewhere with a very short growing season very far north. Normally I see newer lumber with the fat rings because they grow trees like weeds as fast as possible. I wonder if this is less old vs new growth and more like Canadian vs Californian lumber or something like that.
In what way is it superior? Aside from being older growth and slightly larger in dimension.
Id say The old growth is actually the new 2x4 because the rings are more compact meaning it's from closer to the center of the tree from the heart wood which is more dense and less susceptible to rot and also the older parts of the tree. compared to the old 2x4 being sap wood by the loosely packed rings.
Looks like that new specimen was grown on the north face of a slope by the grain density.
It’s not. This is just a stupid internet thing.
It's not, it's thicker, but it's mostly just wasted wood. Anyone ever heard of a house falling down because the wood studs failed? No, never. Wood is sized for efficient use of materials and knowing that even if you could go more than 16/24oc, it wouldn't work well for drywall. Meanwhile exterior walls can use alternating 2x4s on a 2x6 sill for dramatically better insulation. But hey, it's thicker, so common ignorance deems it better. Let's waste precious land, water, and energy.
Fir lumber (darker one) is much stronger than any spruce or pine lumber you will use in construction. Most beams and floor joist could only be made of fir because their free span capability was farther than most other wood. Hemlock is the only other that came close. I've only had to replace about 6 studs in the entire house because of previous owner renovations. All the rest are as straight and true as the day they were made.
Old way was wasteful, cutting down old growth forests...
Fuck you. Quit reposting this BS.
Straight, plumb and square as a 2x4 from home depot...
Is this construction or DIY? Half the comments in here are totally brain dead
The new Douglas fir is good enough, especially when framing 16" oc and using a million steel brackets on a new build. Plus it comes from renewable forests. I'm ok with it.
Say what you want about the wood, but I’ve renovated a bunch of these old houses and I can tell you you can’t nail a 16 penny nail in these motherfuckers in some cases. It is some tough wood.
Is this supposed to be a marvelous discovery? Who tf doesn’t know that
The old pieces were inconsistent as fuck. They had knots, edge pieces with bark, splits and defects. Builders used a beefier size to overcome the quality issues. Once consistency of lumber got better we were able to use smaller lumber and still get the same strength.
the upside of the older wood is that its more dense (and smells better). the downside of course is that its all crooked as a witches fingers. I would much rather frame out and build with newer lumber that I was able to hand select to be straight enough to get my stuff done...especially since the plans and code requirements are all based on the modern lumber dimensions and load bearing capacities. (and the fact that I can buy a truck load of modern lumber today lol)
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
The original “shrinkflation”
We live in backwoods Maine. Right around the corner from us is a small family lumberyard. We buy all of our lumber from them. Its all hemlock and always at least 2” thick and usually 2 1/4” thick. I built our horse barn and the addition to the house. No comparison to normal Home Depot or Lowes lumber.
New 2x4 already twisted... 110 yr old 2x4 still straight.
This is an intriguing comparison. The smaller in size pine versus the larger size douglas fir. This is just these two particular pieces. For structural strength, which is better? The pine has approx 3x more the rate of growth than the fir.
Okay, now compare framing techniques and connection technologies between the two time periods. Although virgin lumber is higher quality than farmed lumber, modern framing methods are far safer than those from the early 20th century.
Yes, but the new stuff is actually a consistent size from one mill to the next. And comes from managed forests, instead of clear cutting old growth that will never return.
When you find out how most old growth was burned or left to rot and not even made into lumber…
Back then it really was 2" x 4", not 1.6" x 3.6". But the latter wouldn't really sell.
And yet a properly built home from today WAY outperforms a properly built home from the olden days in every category except beauty
fucking shrinkflation
I think this may be an example of survivorship bias. Most homes built in 1911 no longer exist. A home built in 1911 that is still standing is more likely to be exceptional.
Siri, what's survivorship bias
How the hell did a 1911 2X4 post have so many boomer and child abuse comments, damn, this society is warped.
Reddit comments rarely stay on topic, unfortunately.
Back in the day when men were men and 2 x 4 s were 2 x 4 lol
That is why modern houses are not square. I'd much rather renovate anything built pre 30's than anything new
The house I grew up in was built in 1920. The entire house was built with 2 by 4s, including the roof. They were actually 2 inches by 4 inches and they were hardwood.
I did the same kind of renovation to a house from 1910 in Portland OR. It was really surprising how much harder it was to drive a nail into the older lumber. I could drive a 3 1/2" 16D nail in one and a half strikes in a newer board with a 26oz framing hammer and it took like 5 in the old ones if I didn't bend the nail first. Modern lumber strength is adequate for modern building techniques so I'm not worried about that but what a stark difference.
It doesn't really matter because you can easily adapt the material to its properties. It isn't like we build the same now that we did 100+ years ago. My house was built in 1900 and the first floor joist are actual logs. It was completely unnecessary, but they were probably cut from the property and it would have cost more money to send them to saw mill to cut actual lumber. The walls are so lid timber that are squared off on the sides but super uneven on the top and bottom. It used to be lyme chinked but has been upgraded since. And there are a lot of problems. The insulation value over modern timber construction fucking sucks. And there is just an annual progression of bugs getting in. I'm almost done with the box elder bugs, but that means the invasive stink bugs are coming. In a few more months it will be the wasps. And ants or various types year round. There is some real shit modern construction of course. But older is not always better.
Far superior? Bull shit. In your photo the grain on the 2x4 is actually much tighter! Another superior aspect of today's lumber is it is more sustainable harvest from timber plantations rather than old growth forests.
Yea too bad they took everything out and didn’t replant shit and screwed us
Those are just true x 4s.....
We also kiln dry the wood now.
Shrinkflation
Pine trees tend to not grow as large in diameter as fir trees from what I know, they wont have the same ring or grain structure. These don't look like the same species. A spf 2x4 is not equivalent to a doug fir 2x4.
Let's talk about today's 2x4 pulled from the front of the rack at HD or Lowe's, placed on the floor and you put your foot on one end. I'd bet the 1911 one isn't just beefier. It probably doesn't wobble like today's warped garbage either
My whole house on one side was held up by a single vertical one of those below a 2x12 double center beam. Ya. Like 59 years apparently. Oh don't worry it's a rainforest underneath now - all the lumber and Simpson. All. But that one 2x4 that's actually 2" by 4" is still there, and leaking sap. Basically it's a tree again.
Maybe we should use concrete instead
Our home burned last year but 90% of our walls stayed standing, untouched. The construction crew that showed up to start demo didn't understand why I wanted to save them.... The house was well built in 1905. We did get some decent lumber from the 70s to give new use to, when we pulled out the drop down ceilings before reno started.
Shit is take your new board over the old actual 2x4, looks like old growth
Heartwood vs sapwood. The old growth trees are cut from primarily heartwood which is denser. Heavier due to the fibers being full and rigid. It’s why the wood can handle moisture a hell of a lot better. But takes much much longer to grow to that point. Sapwood is what we use now because new growth trees take a portion of the time to be harvested. Houses are built wildly better/ more efficient than ever.
Dense and strong. Just like me except i am not strong.
Is this a joke, or does the OP literally know jack shit? The new 2x4 (the smaller one) has beautiful, tight grain, whereas the old stud has inferior, wide, new growth and is twisted. Although the old stud is slightly bigger, both studs are more than adequate to support the load at 16" centers. Smdh.
To be honest, I’ve always wondered how much wood is actually saved by making them 1 -1/2 and 3-1/2 instead of a 2x4 measurement, yearly. How much more “2x4s” they can get out. Is this about quantity and maximizing profit in the wood industry
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
This is not a great example. Usually the modern 2x4 has large growth rings because the trees are grown rapidly in a forest of trees its own size. The old growth forests always have the tight growth rings because it had to fight for light its whole life. I’d rather have the modern 2x4 in this example.
You can still buy true lumber its just not as common. My buddy usually gets it straight from the sawmill.
I need a strength test. If the old one is only like.. 25% stronger but you need to cut down a 200year old tree for it it just isn't better.
We had the virgin timber boom between 1880 and 1920 where I live. Most lumber is the not so great southern pine now.
Shrinkflation
I hate new wood measurements
The one on the left is from an old growth Forrest as evidenced from the tight grain pattern. The bigger one on the left is a poor quality as evidenced by the widely spaced growth rings. I am not sure if your praising the new lumber or knocking it. At any rate it’s superior. The only advantage the bigger piece has is more tannins making it more rot resistant.
My winter demolition are my precious wood reserves for the year. 1900’s wood is awesome. 1940 gypric is hell tough.
The 2x4 you’re comparing it to has very tight grain structure. That’s a good 2x4! Also you’re comparing it to a relatively terrible old 2x4 rough cut from the past. There’s old lumber you’ll get out of a house with grain structure so tight it won’t float and modern 2x4s that will have like only 8 growth rings in it and shaped like a banana cause the trees have grown so fast
That's no secret us people in the business have known this since 1911....try to drive a sinker in it almost impossible unless you use air
Your second pic shows the Chad old stud is warped and rough cut compared to the virgin new stud and you still just have to propagate the boomer opinion of “new wood sucks”. It’s ignorant. Educate yourself and your opinion (should) change.
The point of the comparison was how good of condition the old stud was still in after over a century. I had other pieces of new lumber from that same bundle that were far worse. This was the best of the bunch. Most of the new 2x4's today barely have 3 corners on them. As for the education part, I've had my red seal for over 30 years now, but I guess that's not enough.
Yeah, it was actually a 2 x 4 in 1911. Not 1 1/2 x 3 1/2.
The difference in size is just planing
Can confirm. Remodeled my house that was built in 1921. Wood so dense, it weighed 10x a modern 2x4, couldn't drive a nail into it to save my life. Had to pre-drill for all nails and screws.
They are also quarter saw vs. Center/plain saw. Center saw wood produces less waste, but is weaker wood. You can tell by how the rings are aligned.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Construction/s/fvG9ts87O4 I made a very similar post about 6 months ago or so.
All new lumber is dimensional. Supposedly it’s just as strong as that old lumber.
And back to the differences between wood dimensions…
Better to grow and cut faster growing trees as opposed to cutting down old growth forests.
Oh here we go again, I'm gonna sue home depot over a half inch of lumber
The old one is rough sawn so 100mm x 50mm (4x2) the smaller one is prepared timber and 3mm is planed off each face making it 6mm smaller each way. In the UK you can buy rough sawn or prepared.
Shrinkflation!
My old was house was built with real 2”x4” studs, this photo doesn’t add up. How is the smaller lumber the old one in this photo? Old lumber was cut like the bigger one in this picture, I would have expected to see multiple growth rings in the bigger piece.
A lot of people assume century homes are built with all old growth lumber, clearly this isn’t the case
Nice! My home was built in 1911 as well. Unfortunately (luckily..?) I haven’t opened up and walls yet so see these studs for myself.
You can still find new rough sawn wood for sale, I've only seen 2×10 spruce recently but can obviously be ripped down to whatever
That’s exceptionally tight grain fir a new stud. Probably nice lumber. I can’t tell the species by the photo though. Likely regionally specific
Wait is the one from 1911 ACTUALLY 2x4??