brie0204
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:3
 |
| 08/19/2009 12:00 PM |
|
I just received an ICF quote using Knauf Weblock Forms. The quote for the finished wall including concrete is $12.00 per square foot. Is this about average, reasonable?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rykertest
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:132
|
| 08/19/2009 2:34 PM |
|
| this includes rebar and installation as well? I asusme so since you said finished but want to make sure. |
|
|
|
|
brie0204
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:3
|
| 08/19/2009 2:36 PM |
|
| yes includes material and labor |
|
|
|
|
rykertest
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:132
|
| 08/19/2009 3:00 PM |
|
| I've seen weblock and IN MY OPINION, you can get a MUCH better icf block for the same price. Thats what we charge for Nudura. I would encourage you to look at Nudura, Reward and even some of the other ones. Arxx or Fox Blocks would be a wiser investment IN MY OPINION. :) |
|
|
|
|
rykertest
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:132
|
| 08/19/2009 3:34 PM |
|
| just a bit more info to help you decide. Negatives of post and beams are significant; including a lack of ties/studs to attach finishes to, difficulty ensuring good concrete consolidation, difficulty in reinforcement, less thermal mass, shorter possible lintel spans, and lower ultimate strength. Positives include the possibility of higher R-Values if engineered right, lower installed costs, and lower concrete bills. |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:129
|
| 08/20/2009 12:48 PM |
|
| I looked at the Knauf web site and they do have studs built into their block. As with any product the quaility of the job lies with the contractor using it. Look at the Logix job posted on this web site. |
|
|
|
|
brie0204
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:3
|
| 08/20/2009 1:18 PM |
|
Thanks...I did find a comparison chart with all the ICF brands listed. The Knauf appears to be a good product as compared to all the others listed. Knauf has a good tested r-value of 26 which was one of the highest. I have done alot of research on ICF's and what I am finding is that many that are offered have the basic things you are looking for in an ICF--decent fire rating, sound attenuation, tested r-value---stability---etc. just the numbers vary some but not so much that one seems to impress me over the others. One may have a better fire rating but the next one has a better r-value rating etc--I am also getting quotes from 2 other ICF builders and 1 of them uses Nudura.
The question about which one is the best and which one you should use is no where to be found. I mostly find those who prefer one or 2 brands over any others. So i am still back to the cost and what is reasonable square footage wise for an ICF wall? |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:129
|
| 08/20/2009 1:23 PM |
|
| Lots of variables. but $12 to $14 per square foot of wall area seems to be the range in my area. How many corners makes a big difference. |
|
|
|
|
Baldwin2012
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:47
|
| 11/03/2009 12:26 PM |
|
Posted By rykertest on 08/19/2009 3:00 PM
I've seen weblock and IN MY OPINION, you can get a MUCH better icf block for the same price. Thats what we charge for Nudura. I would encourage you to look at Nudura, Reward and even some of the other ones. Arxx or Fox Blocks would be a wiser investment IN MY OPINION. :)
I dont see how you can say they are better when the ICFs you just mentioned do not even do the same thing...
What do you mean by better? 10% stronger? weblock uses so much less concrete.... you pay the same for the forms but half as much for the concrete and lose very little in strength...
take a look at this.... if strenght is the issue - why not go with a 14" cavity... lol...
why do you guys make strength an issue when it comes do different types of icfs?
so silly.... compared to wood frame or steel frame these things are bunkers...
so yeah at $12 per square foot - you are good to go - that is a good price. |
|
|
|
|
Baldwin2012
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:47
|
| 11/05/2009 12:52 PM |
|
no i am not advocating for hobbs - but i hate it when everyone gangs up on a small icf manufacturer
|
|
|
|
|
renangle
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:170
|
| 11/05/2009 1:18 PM |
|
FWIW, if its a 6" flat ICF Wall (not grid), the prices I'm seeing are about $10.50 - 10.75 sqft turnkey insalled numbers. That's in Virginia and plans that are not overly complicated. That has become a pretty competitive number in my opinion. If design or travel gets a bit nutty that number certainly changes. $12.00 is normally on the high side for us.
renangle |
|
|
|
|
rykertest
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:132
|
| 11/07/2009 11:29 AM |
|
| lol...then use it then. A I stated in my last email this was MY OPINION, you disagree; fine. I'm not bashing a smaller icf company. If it was a good product I'd use it. It isn't. Sure ues less concrete and get a weaker wall, and what about labor? Of course it's better than a stick built wall, I never said it wasn't.
And what do you mean they don't do the same thing? They are to used to build a home right, not fly to the moon. lol This grid technology is in the past for a reason, it's inferior. Why do you think that the progression of ICF's has been AWAY from this style?
|
|
|
|
|
HansConst
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:9
|
| 11/11/2009 4:00 PM |
|
| We install a screen grid for under $8.00 for wall, concrete, rebar, & labor only. Footings add approx. $1.00 SF on 8' walls, and H2O adds something more depending on the product chosen.
Ryker charges $12 SF and defends his wall system as I would if I had to charge that much.
Defense and opinion are just that, the opinion of but one person. My one person opinion finds the opposite positives of Ryker's negatives.
The screen grid we are using has sufficient attachment points, concrete consolidation is simple, and reinforcement is simple. True, there is less thermal mass, however replacing concrete with EPS is not a "bad" thing in the insulation and R-Value world. Sixteen foot lintel spans can be created with eighteen inches of height if one uses simple creativity and goes beyond the constrictive building codes by adopting the manufactures tables ( approved by code if according to ACI 318). Using the manufacturers engineering is not so hard to do. Lower ultimate strength is a moot issue if the wall meets or exceeds code &/or engineering specifications. One need not over build at a higher cost in order to more than sufficiently protect the occupants from nature's forces. Requiring or preferring concrete in a monolithic solid would be similar to having wood or steel in a monolith rather than in a beam and column configuration. This is an engineering thing, to design the safety and strength into a structure. The suggest that other than solid concrete ICFs are not strong enough is a worn out and invalid argument.
It is honorable of Rykert to point out that the not solid concrete ICFs use less concrete, less labor, and have higher R-Values, but it seems apparent that the reasoning for the overall opinion is somewhat flawed. Unless one prefers to pay $12 a SF instead of less than $8 a SF - 50% more.
|
|
|
|
|
rykertest
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:132
|
| 11/12/2009 8:36 PM |
|
| I guess one mans garbage is another mans treasure.
This grid technology is flawed at it's core or in this case lack there of. There is a reason you don't see it anymore but you will of course defend your product more so for ego's sake than anything.
I wish the OP well in their research as I can only lead the horse to water I can't make it drink. |
|
|
|
|
HansConst
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:9
|
| 11/16/2009 5:40 PM |
|
| There was an experienced old Irishman, Daniel P. Moynihan who once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.". |
|
|
|
|