Has anyone had any experience with Milgard triple pane Fiberglass windows? It is getting to crunch time for me to order windows for my new home construction. Ideally, I would like to use a Fiberglass window and have been concerned with using a manufacturer in Canada (wondering about service). Serious Windows are way to expensive. I have recieved a quote from Milgard Windows, but really haven't seen much on these windows within previous posts. All comments on window experience will be greatly appreciated as I have 1 week to decide. Thanks.

w

PV,

What kind of warranty your SWindow have? I'm more interested in fiberglass windows also.
Thx.

Hello,

Serious Windows have a lifetime warranty against defects and workmanship as long as the original purchaser lives in the house.  The warranty also states that "if the original purchaser sells the home before ten (10) years has elapsed after the start date, Serious Windows will automatically extend full coverage under this warranty to the new owner(s) of the home and any subsequent owners, until the tenth (10th) anniversary of the start date upon registration by any such successor owner"

A copy of the full warranty can be found here by clicking additional information:

Thanks.

I wish Serious would lower their prices. After months of intensive research I concluded they were the absolute best. But even their cheapest fiberglass line are so much more expensive than similarly performing windows fron Inline, Accurate Dorwin, Fibertec, Thermotech. etc etc. Come on Serious Materials, America is not spending the way we were pre-financial meltdown and taxes are going up. Thier CFO needs to re-analyze things.

Dolphin, if I may ask, what was the quote?

Serious Windows does offer a wide range of prices.  The vinyl 501 series outperforms nearly all other windows in energy efficiency with Center of Glass R values up to 9 and is extremely competitively priced.  IBACOS did a study on all the different windows on the market and they found that the 501 from Serious Windows is the best value on the market.  Below is the excerpt from the report:

"The Serious Windows 501 Series has emerged as the favorite window based on the latest
incremental construction cost and energy savings information. This window has a cost vs.
energy savings ratio of $0.41/kwh or 23 percent better than the next best window evaluated,
the Solace KR-90. The energy savings information is based on EnergyGauge USA modeling
and is compared to the base window (U=0.33, SHGC = 0.30) used."

You can find additional information on the windows at the Energy Smart Company website.

I just read on another blog that your Serious window is no more than an In Line window with different glazing.... Is this true?

The fiberglass frames are manufactured by In Line but the increase in energy efficiency over competing windows comes from the glass package which includes the 7/8" to 1 3/8" IG, the patented Eco Spacer, the suspended films, krypton gas fill, a triple seal, and three layers of weatherstripping.  These are some of the factors which make them the most energy efficient windows.

Which are available to any manufacturer. Also Krypton is only optimal for 1/4" airspace and after reviewing Inline Tech. Docs. I only see 2 weatherstrippings.

One thing that has me wondering about Serious Windows is why the push back to R-Value terminology. The more educated consumer you're product generally appeals to is going to question this term.

Krypton is optimal for spaces that are 3/8" or smaller.  Anything larger and convective currents begin to move the molecules around which then enables conduction.  Krypton is a denser gas than argon and has one additional electron shell with 18 more electrons on it.  Spaces wider than 3/8", argon outperforms krypton.  Spaces over 1/2" and argon gas begins to have diminishing performance due to convection.

Inline only manufactures the frames.  Serious Windows applies three different layers of weatherstripping for their casement/awning windows creating the worlds most airtight window.

One thing to note about Serious Windows is that they always quote the full frame R value or U value which is the overall energy efficiency of a window based on a 30" x 36" window.  Pretty much every other window manufacture quotes the center of glass R value because that is its best performing point.  For example the Serious Windows 925 picture window has a full frame U value of 0.11, but its center of glass U value is 0.07 because the glass package provides an R14 value at the center of glass.  When comparing windows its important to find out what is being compared so a fair comparison can be made.

Fantastic.... did you source this off the EWC?


Obviously. Let me be more explicit. How do you utilize 3 weatherstrippings if Inlines frames only make concessions for 2. Do you tape it on the frame somewhere? Or are you including the glazing gaskets/tape?
Does Serious have AAMA ratings to back up this claim?

Also is Serious using PVC stops like Inline as well?

So whats the difference?

What window companies quote COG numbers PV?

If U-Value was created to confuse the consumer...it is doing a pretty good job on you as well. The NFRC actually refers to the performance measurement as U-Factor and always has.

R-value measures a material’s resistance to heat flow whereas U-value (or U-factor) measures the actual heat flow through a material. It doesn’t sound like a big difference, but there can be significant differences when dealing with the overall heat loss of an object that has different materials used in its construction and when different avenues of heat loss are available.

I think the serious line of windows has some nice glazing options, however, they are not worth the money they are trying to charge for them and especially when you consider there are a myriad of windows on the market today that have U-Factors (whole unit) in the mid teens for far less money.

What’s the Difference between
U-factor and R-value?
The biggest difference between U-factor and R-value
is that U-factor measures the rate of heat transfer (or
loss) while R-value measures the resistance to heat
loss. R-value is a measure of conductivity.

Windows are very different from insulation in walls
and ceilings. Windows let the light in and allow
people to see out, and they interact with their
environment in ways that insulation does not. They
react to outside air temperatures, sunlight, and wind,
as well as indoor air temperatures and occupant use.
Windows are strongly affected by solar radiation and
the airflow around them. R-value does not accurately
reflect this interaction. Therefore, the window
industry measures the energy
efficiency of their products in terms of
thermal transmission, or U-factor.
U-factor measures the rate of heat
transfer through a product. Therefore,
the lower the U-factor, the lower the
amount of heat loss, and the better a
product is at insulating a building.
from a warm room outside to the cold air. The lower
the conductivity and emissivity of the glass, the lower
the rate of heat loss and the lower the U-factor.
There have been significant technological
developments over the last 10 years involving low
emissivity (low-e) coating son the glass. There are
now many glass products available with these low-e
coatings, which are typically used in dual pane
windows and insulating glass units.
Where NFRC-Certified Products Are
Required or Encouraged

Thank you BlackHatch. Also it is possible to convert the values. The R Value is the inverse of the U Value.

I do have to commend Serious for diligently pushing higher standards for fenestration products however.

Looks like Serious themselves quote COG.

Posted By BlackHatch on 11/03/2009 12:40 AM
What’s the Difference between
U-factor and R-value? The biggest difference between U-factor and R-value
is that U-factor measures the rate of heat transfer (or
loss) while R-value measures the resistance to heat
loss. R-value is a measure of conductivity.

R=1/U. It isn't that hard.


Windows are very different from insulation in walls
and ceilings. Windows let the light in and allow
people to see out, and they interact with their
environment in ways that insulation does not.
 They react to outside air temperatures, sunlight, and wind,
as well as indoor air temperatures and occupant use.

The only thing in that list that is in that list that is true is occupant use. If wall insulation didn't react to outside air temperature, you heating bill would be the same in september as it is in febuary.

Windows are strongly affected by solar radiation and
the airflow around them. R-value does not accurately
reflect this interaction.
It never claimed to.

Therefore, the window
industry measures the energy
efficiency of their products in terms of
thermal transmission, or U-factor.

U factor doesn't measure any of that stuff either. R=1/U! If it changed R, it would change U!


U-factor measures the rate of heat
transfer through a product. Therefore,
the lower the U-factor, the lower the
amount of heat loss, and the better a
product is at insulating a building.
Just like the higher the R, the better a product is at insulating a building.


from a warm room outside to the cold air. The lower
the conductivity and emissivity of the glass, the lower
the rate of heat loss and the lower the U-factor.
There have been significant technological
developments over the last 10 years involving low
emissivity (low-e) coating son the glass. There are
now many glass products available with these low-e
coatings, which are typically used in dual pane
windows and insulating glass units.
And the values of these low-e coating are included in the R value.

 

What window companies quote COG numbers PV?

What company doesn’t? Have you ever read the literature of 99% of the windows out there?

If U-Value was created to confuse the consumer...it is doing a pretty good job on you as well. The NFRC actually refers to the performance measurement as U-Factor and always has.

A company based around windows rates the windows in a way that is favorable to the window manufacturers. Isn’t that a shock.

R-value measures a material’s resistance to heat flow whereas U-value (or U-factor) measures the actual heat flow through a material. It doesn’t sound like a big difference, but there can be significant differences when dealing with the overall heat loss of an object that has different materials used in its construction and when different avenues of heat loss are available.

R=1/U. It really isn’t that hard.

I think the serious line of windows has some nice glazing options, however, they are not worth the money they are trying to charge for them and especially when you consider there are a myriad of windows on the market today that have U-Factors (whole unit) in the mid teens for far less money.

These might not be worth the money to you or to 99% of average homeowners, for many people with super insulated walls (I’m talking R-30+) they make a lot of financial sense.

Why are you arguing with me. That quoted information is from the NFRC.

You are not shedding light on any of life's mysteries by saying that U-Factor = 1/R Value. Thank you for the update...albeit completely unnecessary. Whether the basis for changing the thermal efficiency designations on windows was justified or otherwise, there are certainly multiple avenues of heat loss or gain for a window that are not subject to your average building material.

You are hard pressed, in any home, to legitimize a nearly $2000 price delta per unit, to go from a window that has a whole unit U-Factor of 0.15 to a window that has a U-Factor of 0.09. Unless energy costs go through the roof, that projected payback on that investment is probably 20+ years. At which point, there will be far better technology for windows available. Based on averages for R-Value in a wall that is 100 sq/ft with 15 sq/ft of window, the overall R-Value of the wall and window in the case of the U-Factor window of 0.15 is 26.95 vs 27.53. Is that worth a $2000 difference per window. No.

Seeing as I work in the industry, I am quite familiar with company literature. I can tell you that the window companies that I recommend (Soft-Lite, Sunrise, Gorell, Marvin, Simonton, Okna, etc) do not quote COG numbers in their marketing materials. I cannot speak for the rest of the industry, but I can think of at least a dozen or so manufacturers off the top of my head that don't quote COG.

Some manufactures do quote them, however, if they are quoting them first instead of whole unit U-Factors, I find that unrepresentative and bordering on unethical.

I think you have gotten some misinformation about pricing for serious windows. I got a quote for a job recently, and an 6'*4' series 925 picture window was around $800, and a 3'*3' series 925 casement window was around $550. I agree that if these windows were $2000 more expensive it would never make more sense.