rnortman;

I agree that the stud/foam sytstems are not trully SIPs, I also doubt that they can make the same claim that they are 3 x stronger than frame ...................... because they are frame!

They are "panelized" wall sections, nothing new with that technology, it simply saves construction time/labor. But cannot match the structural integrity that a true SIP system brings to the table.

Maybe the GBT forum will give then their own special titled section to peddle their antiquated technology

By the way, a user of this forum can edit their posting but can not delete it.  Only the forum moderator can delete a posting.  I am not aware of the correct procedure in having the moderator to delete a posting.  Does anyone know?

Nortman,

Simple answer from me... Yes.

Maybe there needs to be a way to break down the types of SIP's. SSIP - Skin Structural Insulated Panels, MSIP - Metal Skinned Insulated Panels, StSIP - Stud based Structural Insulated Panels.  (I don't think so... just something to think about, this would be very confusing.)

As a person who wants my next house to be Energy Efficient and wants an easy way to be able to research my options, SIPS should include ALL Structural Insulated Panels.  I would not expect this to include structral panels that are not energy efficient. 

By excluding any type of a "super" insulated panel, a person might choose to use conventional framing and not take advantage of super insulating a structure due to lack of knowledge, knowledge of local availabilty of products (is this not a key point to Green Building?),  the ability to find qualified building professionals, and probably many other deciding factors on which product to use. 

What is needed is information.  This is the only place that I have been able to find that provides the knowledge / debate on the different building systems that are out there.  Two good examles of this is the debate between metal / wood skinned SIPS and the use of EPS/Urathane insulation.  In order for a (potential) owner/builder to gain as much information as possible about energy efficient building, it is better to include than to exclude.
 
I find that it is good to get outside of the manufactures propaganda of why they are the only product to use and to find out what options are available.  I like to look for the reasons why something is bad, is there a qualifing reason for the critism or is it a vague statement like "oh, it just doesn't work".  I like when people question statements that are vague but may not seam like it is vague.  From cmkavala "I agree that the stud/foam sytstems are not trully SIPs, I also doubt that they can make the same claim that they are 3 x stronger than frame ...................... because they are frame!", he points out the vagueness of the statement, even though his statment is vague in return.  It gives me something to think about while I look at different SIP systems.  If strenght was a key factor for me based on Chris's statement I would almost have to ask what would be wrong with just glueing metal to the outside of any structure to make it stronger?  (notice I said almost)

By reading this site and other sites I have excluded one foundation system already due to the appearent unwillingness of the "Home" company to step in when the franchisee does not step up to the plate.

Instead of being afraid of the "other" SIP's, bring them in, make them prove themselves. If they are successful, learn to be better at what you do, if they can't, still learn to be better at what you do.  At my last  job (computers) I did not operate on the belief that if it is not broken don't fix it but on the principle of " If it is not broke, what can we do to make it better."   In the case of this site that would have to be, Being Greener.

Thanks for letting me speak my mind.
Kurt