I have a few questions regarding the Hobbs ICF block that I hope someone can clarify for me. I am intrigued to learn that your wall system is reported (by Hobbs) as being around 30% more expensive than other more traditional wall systems. In an effort to combat that price difference, Hobbs recommends using 40% less concrete which many here could argue is the most important structural element of an ICF walls system. I also have a question regarding the 25% better insulation as reported by your company. Would that mean that a 2200 sqft house built with Hobbs would perform 25% better than the same size house built with another ICF wall system right next to it? I would be inclined to doubt it, but if you have those actual numbers that would be great to see. Most ICF wall systems have a r-value around 27 (without taking into account thermal mass which I will not get into) and Hobbs is apparently at 30, which is around 11% more and not 25%...are my numbers wrong? Your website states that the labor required to install your product is significantly less that other traditional walls systems. How exactly did you come by those numbers? I believe that it would be accurate to say that $3.25/sqft to build an ICF house is pretty competitive, but I'll give you that. Your installation/labor cost projection of $1.63/sqft means that a 30 x 40 house with lets say 6 corners being built with windows and doors (with a height of 30' from foundation to roof) would only cost $6,846 in labor? Does that labor number also include travel time, additional building materials, etc? In addition, according to your numbers, the total cost difference between a traditional flat wall ICF system and Hobbs for a house of that size would be only $1,428, with 40% less concrete being used when compared to a traditional ICF block ($39,168 to $37,758). Is the Hobbs system really that much better at the end of the day? I have a difficult time believing that at flat wall ICF system with concrete the same thickness throughout the wall is structurally inferior to one that has varying degrees to thickness to it...am I wrong? Thanks, renangle

Hi Renangle,
I`ll attempt to answer some of your questions and concerns with respect to the Hobbs system.
Firstly, Hobbs does not `recommend` using 40% less concrete in the system. It is just a mathamatical formula based on the volume of space left in the cavity of the form that dictates the volume of concrete to fill it completely. There is no option to the volume of concrete that the form will hold.
Secondly, Your remark about Hobbs having a R-value of only 11% greater than other ICFS seems off the mark if you examine other ICF block websites. I am not sure which ICF block you use or endose but after examining 11 different blocks on the market and their resoective r-values from their respective web sites, this is what I found. These R-value based on EPS content only to use as a comparison. A figure next to each product identifies the % of R-value compared to Hobbs at R-30

Amvic R-20 +23.3%
Fox R-24 +20%
Logix R-24 +20%
Advantage R-23 +24%
Nudura R-22.4 +25.4%
Superform R-23 +24%
Quad-Lock R20 +33%
Build Block R-20 +33%
Green Block R-23 + 24%
Arxx R-22 +27%

If you average the values that puts Hobbs at 25.57% greater R-value compared to the blocks. The only block I could find with a higher R-value was Mike Block at R-28, which Hobbs is still 7% higher. With Mike Block put into the average Hobbs Vertical ICF is still 23.88% high when compared to the field of 11 block manufactures.

Thirdly, Performance of a building is based on many factors besides R-value. Attic insulation, windows, HVAC, ect.

Fourly, the comment about the labour cost to install a block compared to Hobbs Vertical ICF is easy to see if you watch the `challenge video`on the Hobbs site. It simply takes half the man hours to install the same amount of sqft of block.

You have a lot of issues for me to address.

So here I go.

The amount of EPS foam in the Hobbs VICF in a typical 9’0”wall height is:

- 7 ¼” with exposed studs on each side at an R-value of 4.2 per inch of foam = R-30.

- 8.5” non exposed studs on each side at an R value of 4.2 per inch = R- 35.

The amount of foam in a typical BICF with a 6” concrete core (CC) is 5.25”.

At an R-Value of 4.2 per inch for the foam only, it = R-22.

This difference is why the Hobbs VICF has up to a 25% higher R-Value than a typical 6” (CC) BICF.

No where do we make the claim that the Hobbs VICF would perform 25% better than a typical BICF home.

In order to compare the difference, in the cost of the Hobbs VICF, one would have to find out what a typical BICF with a 6” (CC) would cost, using 7 1/4”of EPS foam.

Hobbs VICF does not recommend using 40% less concrete.

It use’s 40% less concrete than a typical 6” (CC) BICF, because of its design.

The Hobbs VICF has been engineered and optimized to place concrete precisely where it is structurally required for strength, reducing the amount of concrete by 40% when compared to a typical 6” (CC) BICF.

I have found, that when pointing out that the  Hobbs VICF  uses 40% less concrete, up to 25% more R-Value, and up to 39%  more foam insulation than a typical 6” (CC) VICF it can easily be quantified using simple math.

So showing that the Hobbs VICF uses 50% +/- less labour than a typical 6” (CC) BICF, once again needed to be quantified using simple math.

It shows 2 men putting up the BICF’s and 1 man putting up the Hobbs VICF.

- 2 sets, of identical 50 l.f.  footings, with the rebar and track/angle base installed.

- 3- 90 degree corners, 2- walls to butt up against, - rebar to be cut to size on site and the same bracing system and scaffold planks.

The results of the challenge speak for themselves. After 2 hours it was called a draw.

It took 2 men to put up the BICF compared to 1 man to put up the same amount of wall in Hobbs VICF.

Any time you would like to, come on down, bring your BICF’s, and let’s build some ICF walls.

Whenever I get into a discussion regarding  the structural strength of the Hobbs VICF, it usually revolves around whether or not I am able to articulate , in terms that my particular audience can understand,  the engineering principles and concepts that need to be kept in mind, in accepting the  design of the Hobbs VICF System and why it works.

I have a 35 year history in the RCF industry, erecting concrete foundations.

I have had the thrill of hands on experience, in the construction of building bridges, and the foundations for many types of commercial structures, and simple foundations for a homeowner.

In commercial applications, we would get a set of plans, stamped from a structural engineer, stating what concrete to use, the size and location of the rebar to be placed and we would go to work erecting the structure.

I never questioned the engineer’s skill set and ability to design these structures. And I expected the same respect from him, when it came to erecting them. He does what he is trained to do and my crews did what they were trained to do.

So with all due respect sir, when you use the phrases “many here would argue “and “I have a difficult time believing” , in your questions about the strength of the Hobbs VICF, I have come to realize, that, for example, getting into a discussion of the positioning of the vertical rebar in the exact location that it must be, nearest the interior face of the wall, in a vertical rebar holder, that is  incorporated in the design of our retainer clip, helps meet the  underlying mathematical concepts that an engineer requires to support, that it is structurally sound when subjected to all the loads it could reasonably be expected to experience.

No matter how technical I get, or what analogy’s I use, unless you can get beyond your skepticism of “more concrete is stronger”, am I really going to convince you otherwise?

The Hobbs VICF is not for everyone.

If you embrace the culture of leading edge technology and forward thinking then you will have no problem using the Hobbs VICF.

May you continue to grow your ICF business in 2010, and thank-you for the opportunity to address your concerns.

 

wow! that last post by JF was pretty aggressive, so maybe I missed something. During my exploration on the website of the "vertical" ICF system that is the subject of this thread, it looked to me like there were substantial areas where the foam forms are only 2" thick, so,using an R-value of 4.2 per inch, results in a total R-value in those areas of 16.8. I wonder how that calcs out for the overall energy efficiency of a wall when some percentage is R-18 and some is R-30 or R-35? I really don't pretend to have the answer to that question, and am looking to continue my education in this area. Maybe one of our resident energy engineers will help us out on this one?

By the way, "in the spirit of transparency" this poster IS with a firm that distributes, and installs, TF, the original "Vertical" ICF system.

The Sipper:

 

Even though I represent Hobbs VICF, I truly feel that getting everyone’s input into putting together a guide to performance and tolerances in ICF construction will show how far this industry has come, when manufactures and installers are confident enough to set benchmarks to be judged by.

 

That is why I chose to start a thread.

 

If you look at the performance guidelines from the NAAB, for stick frame and RCF foundation wall construction. There tolerances, pale in comparison to what we in the ICF industry are proposing and that renangle claim that his customers are currently receiving.

Which by the way, I am very impressed with.
 

Of course, if I had my way, I would like everyone to make Hobbs VICF their ICF of choice.

But, unfortunately for me, that is not how it seems to work out there.

 

There are a lot of great ICF systems out there, and they should be judged on their merit alone.

The service that they provide, and the people that they have chosen to represent them

 

In the big picture, every time someone switches over to building with ICF, our industry, the fight against foreign oil dependency, and our environment, wins.

 

Out of respect to this site, now that you have made yourself transparent to me, I feel that we should continue our dialogue thru PM, and not on this thread.

Joseph.. is the end " materials costs" higher or lower for the Hobbs System vs a 6 inch core like Logix or Nudura ?

By materials.....I mean ICF, rebar and concrete only.

You must have a spreadsheet calc somewhere, eh ?

Are the P.Eng fees separate, or included in the block order ?

Cheers :-)

Mr. Monkman:

It was nice when I was invisible. 

Send me your e-mail address via PM and I will pass it along to the distributor in your area.

To touch on some of your questions.
 

VICF’s

In order to compare apples to apples, are the two systems that you refer to, available with 6.5” of total foam?

Otherwise, if we use a stick framing analogy, we are comparing a 2 x 4 wall with a 2 x 6 wall.

 

REBAR:

I have no idea how much rebar these systems require.

Let us use an example of:  200 lf of 9’4” wall backfilled 8’10” high and 6 corners.

Include those in your PM.

 

CONCRETE:

 Using the above example – approx. 16 CM.

 

ENGINNIEERING:

It is factored on a project by project basis.

So, no it is not included in your VICF order, unless your distributor chooses to do so.

 

In order to put a proper value on using the Hobbs VICF  system, one  needs to give a value for the extra R-Value ( foam)that you receive, the reduced amount of concrete required, and the associated labour savings needed to meet the tolerances that are being proposing in another thread that is on the go.

When you add these up, a Hobbs VICF can be installed for the same price +/-as a typical, 6” core BICF.
 Unless,of course  if you live in an area where you buy direct from the manufacturer and skip the distributor.

I would greatly appreciate your input, in the other above-mentioned thread. – A guide to performance and tolerances in ICF construction.

Another subscriber to this form –“reangle”  states that his installers have no issues meeting or exceeding theses tolerances.

 What do you think, are they too lax, and what else would you include?

 

Once again, it is probably best that we communicate via PM,eh!

Mr Farella :
I am just trying to compare actual material costs..your system ....versus a common local ICF system.

The "benefits" or superiority of one versus the other, is not the question.

Once costing is established...other comparables can be looked at.

Just trying to keep things simple here :-)

"Joseph Farella"

I certainly appreciate your kind "welcome" to these forums, as well your explanation of what Green Building Talk is all about. Perhaps there are others who were helped by this explanation, and maybe we can all adjust to your perception of how we should conduct ourselves when participating on these threads. (all of this after only 5 posts?)

I know, perhaps a "hint" of sarcasm there but my intent was to make a point, not to be nasty.

I only have a few more comments at this time, in connection with this thread but I'm sure there'll be more coming depending on how things play out

First, you suggested that renangle start another thread if he had questions regarding the products that you're promoting because you didn't feel that your original thread, re "A guide to performance and tolerances in ICF construction" was the proper place for his questions. He took you up on your suggestion, as have several others, including myself, and you've responded to some of these questions but not to others.

The question that I had was really addressed to someone who is an expert in the field of "energy engineering" but I thought that maybe you would have an answer. To repeat, and perhaps rephrase my question: In a typical rectangular 40' by 60' x 8' high wall, what % of that wall has 2" of foam on each side? And how does that affect the overall R-Value of that wall? (I think that I might have a pretty good idea regarding the answer to this question but I'd like to get a precise answer from an "expert", if possible) I know that renangle challenged your claims of "up to 25% more energy efficiency" with your system, and a subsequent Hobbs advocate was bold enough to take on 10 of the best known "Block Guys" with claims of up to 33% superiority in energy efficiency.

As far as conducting these types of "discussions" via private email, that wouldn't be any fun, and not very productive, in my book.

By the way: "WELCOME TO GREEN BUILDING TALK", Yourself!

I don't have a problem with transparency and tend to appreciate it, because it creates a level playing field. I am a distributer for Amvic and I make no bones about it, but I do try to answer questions without a bias one way or the other and rarely mention/promote them by name. I'm sure that if you search every post I've made perhaps you can poke holes in that statement, but over time I believe I've to have learned better and improved my credibility. Joseph, I also use my real name on this board (Ren Angle) because I believe in what I do, thus I put my name on it.

My primarly question as it pertains to Hobbs comes down to cost as I brought up before...

"I believe that it would be accurate to say that $3.25/sqft to build an ICF house is pretty competitive, but I'll give you that. Your installation/labor cost projection of $1.63/sqft means that a 30 x 40 house with lets say 6 corners being built with windows and doors (with a height of 30' from foundation to roof) would only cost $6,846 in labor? Does that labor number also include travel time, additional building materials, etc? In addition, according to your numbers, the total cost difference between a traditional flat wall ICF system and Hobbs for a house of that size would be only $1,428, with 40% less concrete being used when compared to a traditional ICF block ($39,168 to $37,758)."

Yes, I saw the video and it did show the one guy beating to two other guys in the demonstration, but the video is a little subjective for me. What happens though when you do another video where you encounter an above grade situation that requires several openings...does the one guy still win? I simply find it difficult to believe that $1.63 labor price is reasonable, but I could always be wrong. It seems to me from the Hobbs website that the total cost difference between the VICF and BICF is minimal and that the difference seems to be because of the reduction of concrete and reduced labor costs (where Hobbs material costs are greater). That is what in the end I am questioning.

I do prefer a flat wall ICF system over those with varying thickness of concrete, but if the Hobbs engineering numbers work, we can agree to disagree.

I am looking for clarrification, that is all.

renangle

MR. Sipper

 

Before I comment on your last post, I will try and satisfy your inquire from your 11/22/2009 10:14 post.

When you do the math, the number R-30 is over 36% higher than the number R-22 that we reference to.

Yes, our panel, thru design, is not constant throughout, as you have so astutely pointed out. So the R-value will be a variable number depending on a number of factors (IE: wall height,EPS thickness etc.)

When you give component R-Value to concrete, drywall, and siding to any system, it will explain stated values of R-30 and R-24 that are stated on their sites. Some have included more components than others.( for instance I have seen an R-Value assigned to being a vapour barrier in BICF).

That is why we make the claim of 25% higher not 36% higher.

 In your most recent post , you referred to “REANGLE’ s”  claim that Hobbs is “up to 25% more energy efficiency”.

As I stated in a previous post, “I agree with you Mr. Sipper “, his claim is not correct.

Hobbs VICF does not make this claim, reangle does.

Perhaps you should take this up with reangle personally, via PM.

 

I take Greenbuilding talk seriously Mr. Sipper, as do all the professionals, builders and homeowners out there, who take time out from there busy schedules to participate in these  forums, and offer their input or ask questions.

 

 Greenbuildingtalk, at least in my opinion,   was not intended to be a playground, where people as yourself can, as you describe it have “fun”.

 

Here is a recent quote from a colleague of mine, who I asked if he was following the most recent posts.

 

“If you are referring to the GBT its been stupid.  I have not even been on it the last week due to all the bickering, infighting, etc.”

 

I can go back and find many, many comments similar to those above that have been posted in the past.

The question is how many have not been.?

We would like these people back in the forum. It will be better for it.

 

 

I have no right or authority to yell you how to conduct yourself in this forum or for that matter, anything else that you do in your life.

 

 If you feel that I have, I sincerely apologize!.

 

It has become very apparent to me that, since you make your living selling and installing the “other” VICF on the market, that you feel the need to put the Hobbs VICF in a negative light.

In is not in our culture as a company, to build up our product, by tearing down another

.

 Pointing out the features that make it different, and how these features help create the finished product that the consumer is looking for ,is simply marketing 101.

Personally, I can see a lot of features to like, in the “Original” VICF that you represent, compared to the BICF’s that are out there.

I think it would be make a  great choice to build in ICF with, if the features, service and people from the Hobbs VICF were not what they were looking for.

 

I invite you to participant in another thread called “ a guide to standards and tolerances”.

I have no reason to doubt, that you do anything but excellent work when installing your system.

Perhaps, with your input, you can help influence those who are thinking of using ICF on their next project, and are not sure what kind of finished product to expect, to do so.

 

Raising the bar, can only make the ICF industry better.

 

Joseph,

I am sorry if you are getting upset or frustrated. I am curious though how my asking a quetion regarding Hobbs being 25% more energy efficient than another ICF house becomes a claim or statment? Why would someone have to bring something up with me, when I am asking a question about Hobbs? You can tell me that you are right, I am wrong, there are several answers to be had. I do not understand how a question can be spun into me making some sort of claim or statement.

Perhaps something has been lost in translation? Someone earlier was correct in correcting me about my comment about a flatwall being structurally inferior and that was appropriate. Again, I am only seeking clarification as I have mentioned before.

Thanks, renangle

QUAD-LOCK'S HIGHEST R-VALUE IS R-38...  (TRUE R-VALUE)

SO MAYBE EDIT YOUR POST MOFFAT.

 

maybe my font is too big - i just hate it when people don't do their research...

The Hobbs product looks pretty neat, but they should put some details on their website showing window and door bucking vis-a-vis the vertical members. I'd also be curious to know what they recommend as far as placing consolidating concrete in the 2" panel sections.

You need to do some more research. http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Articles/tabid/58/page/4/action/view/id/68987/Default.aspx

Ren Angle

To start out with, I have never questioned your credibilty,and I don't see why anyone else would either.
 

The claim that we make is, at R-30, we have up to 25% more insulation value than a typical BICF, not, 25% more energy efficiency than a tyipical BCIF.

That is paramount to asking the question, using stick frame terminology  , is a  2x4 R-10 wall, 100% more energy  efficient than a R-20 2x6 wall................

Perhaps this is just me being me, but the claim was never made, so why ask. Then we have someone else who is referring to your question, and on and on it goes.

I have trouble enough articulating what I say, I said, in this world, let alone what I never said in the first place.

To repeat my previous answer ““No where do we make the claim that the Hobbs VICF would perform 25% better than a typical BICF home.”

 

You will find Ren that being transparent at times is not what it is cracked up to, but, at the end of the day it is the right way to conduct one’s self.

 

Regarding the video challenge:

 

When I first proposed this challenge, the biggest stumbling block that I encountered was that no installer was willing to spend the money and buy the blocks.

And who could really blame them, a lot of block got cut up in this challenge.

So I went to a local BCIF distributor, who just happened to be AMVIC, just down the road from me. I told him about the challenge and what I was going to do with the blocks and he had no issues with it at all, and agreed to deliver them to the challenge site in approx. 10 days, with a certified cheque in hand of course!. At the 11^th hour, when they were not there, my office called to inquiry on the delivery. The distributor was very short and to the point, “Do you think we are stupid, we are no longer interested in something like that”

 

If a picture can speak a thousand words, than what does that say to you.
 

We then went to a different BICF manufacturer’s distributor, and once again, being fully transparent about the challenge, ordered BICF’s for the challenge. To their credit, they arrived on time, when they said they would, with no issues.

 

Any dollar figure that is put on installations is, as you put it, subjective. I come from a world, where after the materials have been settled on, it is all about the man-hours required to complete the job, when measuring the profitability of a project.

Let us use your example of a 40 x30 house.  On one level, if we were to use the video as a reference, that would be 140 lf.of wall at 9’4”.

With Hobbs VICF at 25/hr per man it would take him 5.6 hrs and the BCIF at 11.2 hrs to get to the same point.

This is when staged properly of course. (Which is the secret to any job, ICF or otherwise).

That is with no windows in this wall.

 

If you use the prescribed industry pour rates as a guideline, in theory we should take 40% less time to pour the wall, as we use 40% less concrete.

Since the VICF has been plumbed and straightened prior to the pour, there are minimal man/hours required to straighten out any kinks, after the wall is poured, if it is required at all.

Also consider that a VICF does not float nor compress, which when combined with the re-plumbing of the wall, which I believe is required in BCIF, there is no need to top up the top of the wall with concrete, to put it on grade.

This means that when the pump is done, other than incidentals, the pour is done.

As far as openings go, we have started using the same technique that we do with our corners and prebuilt the wall unit, panels, steel, buck and all, and stand them up, before we stand up any walls. If there are a lot of openings, it really does not leave a lot of wall to put up, in a lot of cases. If you know your buck sizes, the foam panels are ordered pre-cut.

 

One can put any dollar figure to a man- hour he chooses to.

At the end of the day, as you put it, it is all subjective.

What you charge a man-hour will determine the install rate.

To keep up our transparency, you are asking your question as a distributor of Amvic BICF, and I am attempting to answer them as a representative of Hobbs VICF.

 

I believe that I asked you in a previous post, if you tell your customers, that their wall will meet or exceed the proposed tolerances that are being proposed in the tolerances thread.

Sounds like you do great work are there any other tolerances or guidelines that would you recommend?

For what it is worth to you, as a BICF, Amvic would be a fantastic choice, if BICF were a direction that a consumer wanted to go in, for ICF construction.

Thank you Joseph for that well explained response to my question, I appreciate it as well as the respect you have given to me. I agree with you in that things can certainly become lost in translation on this forum (or simply taken over), there no question there. There are several smart people on here that are pretty passionate about what they do and that is a good thing, in my opinion.

Certainly there are some that try to push their own agenda and there is not much harm there depending on how its done (I am only making a statement of history and not directing anything toward you specifically). My experience over the years on this site has found that rarely do manufactures post things (or certainly don't admit to it), because when they are discovered they are called out to a certain degree, because the intent of the forum is not to really push one block system over another.

If you look back to an earlier post, someone asked us to list the Top 10 ICFs manufactured today. Its funny to me to look at that post, because many of us refused to touch the subject because we know that will potentially create a powder keg for arguements, etc.,. It took a 1 1/2 pages to even start a list!

Since you (and Andrew Hobbs) have recently come forward, it can create a situation such as what we have experienced here. When representatives from a manufacturer come on here it can be considered by some (or lets just say me) as a way to market their product without paying Jamie for advertising as other manufactures have done, so it can be seen as creating a less than level playing field. That can result in "picking" on them. Many of us know our competitors pretty well and can pick on each other when we want, but that is why it took so long for that top 10 list to be created.

Again, I try not to promote one block over another and sincererly want to help those seeking it, because in my opinion the continued success of the ICF industry will be enhanced by giving people the best help possible before they build using ICF technology.

As for our clients, we offer them different subcontractors to use (depending on the location) and also offer to take them to a site that is currently under constrution or complete (or photos) so they are comfortable with the building process. We have been successful with doing this and look to continue in that direction. Some want to build it themselves and when they do we advise them on how to do it, but also on the risks involved.

I think that trying to get the industry to incorporate a tolerance and performance guideline are probably hard to do. Block can be dropped at nearly any site and put up by whomever (if you really want to), so I think it would be difficult. Perhaps with certified national crews yes, but there are very few of them right now. Perhaps in time that will change.

Again, thank you for your response. Hopefully we can close this tread. renangle

Hello,

B Moffat made a mistake regarding Quad-Lock's standard R-Value - it has been a true R-22 since introduction in 1994. Quad-Lock also introduced "PLUS" panels in 2002 to provide options of true R-30 and R-38.

Quad-Lock is pleased to introduce another option to really superinsulate the building shell, e.g. for Net Zero Energy Homes, Off-the-Grid, 'Passivhaus', and other superefficient structures. It's called the 'Extra' Panel which can be added inside the ICF to achieve up to R-84! Details...

In my personal opinion, the R-45 and R-53 configurations provide a great value for the additional insulation.

Best regards,
Georg Kustermann