# The Importance of Sheathing



## jar546 (Sep 30, 2020)

That brick façade was useless, not that it was suppose to do anything.


----------



## e hilton (Sep 30, 2020)

You mean that 1/2” foil faced sheathing isn’t good enough?   Bubba says they always use that.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 1, 2020)

e hilton said:


> You mean that 1/2” foil faced sheathing isn’t good enough?   Bubba says they always use that.


So much for wind bracing and Styrofoam sheathing.


----------



## rktect 1 (Oct 1, 2020)

I heard that the contractors were good, knew what they were doing and built it to minimum code requirements.  Which is why the municipality didn't need to inspect it.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 8, 2020)

As usual, don't exceed minimums and make more profit.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 9, 2020)

They did not even meet the minimum code requirements
TABLE R602.10.3(1)
BRACING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WIND SPEED


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 9, 2020)

How far out in the hinterlands were these good ol boys located?


----------



## Sifu (Oct 9, 2020)

e hilton said:


> You mean that 1/2” foil faced sheathing isn’t good enough?   Bubba says they always use that.


That is not even 1/2".  Ply-gem, same as my house...but at least I have diagonal let-in bracing (at least where I have opened the walls for alterations).  Hard to see but it doesn't look like they did.


----------



## hamnajain (Oct 12, 2020)

Sheathing isn’t strictly necessary, but you will need to dig a little deeper to find out how the wall is constructed. It may have let-in bracing, or steel strap bracing, or shear panels at the corners.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 12, 2020)

Sifu said:


> That is not even 1/2".  Ply-gem, same as my house...but at least I have diagonal let-in bracing (at least where I have opened the walls for alterations).  Hard to see but it doesn't look like they did.



It may help with wind but not impact from debris


----------



## mark handler (Oct 13, 2020)

That's Texas for you... we don't need no stinking CA Codes.....


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 13, 2020)

Now if we could just build fireproof houses in CA (smiling).


----------



## mark handler (Oct 14, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Now if we could just build fireproof houses in CA (smiling).


WE CAN
And for years on this site and that other, failed site, I have been saying we should not be building in wildfire and wildfire interface zones.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 15, 2020)

We all pay through our taxes and ever-increasing insurance rates, the people to live in these zones, fire interface zones, flood zones, hurricane, earthquake and tornado zones.
BUT
Some are preventable, flood zones and fire zones.
Every 10 years there are devastating fires in Malibu, yet they still allow combustible construction in the hills.​Seven major floods in Louisiana since 2000.​


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 15, 2020)

point well made


----------



## tmurray (Oct 15, 2020)

Really nice of the tax payers to subsidize people living in these high risk zones. How very socialist of you all.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 16, 2020)

tmurray said:


> Really nice of the tax payers to subsidize people living in these high risk zones. How very socialist of you all.


It really all about them, look at the government subsidies, look at the big corporations that got government corvid stimulus checks, and they laid off employees.


----------



## Min&Max (Nov 6, 2020)

mark handler said:


> WE CAN
> And for years on this site and that other, failed site, I have been saying we should not be building in wildfire and wildfire interface zones.


Or maybe they could manage their forests in a manner that does not provide a massive fuel load. But I suppose they can go out and hug the charred, wasted remains.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 9, 2020)

Min&Max said:


> Or maybe they could manage their forests in a manner that does not provide a massive fuel load. But I suppose they can go out and hug the charred, wasted remains.


So you, like tRump, think we should rake the forest floors  or clear cut it?
By the way you apparently do not know, the *federal government owns* *and manages* nearly *58% *of the forest area in CA. Including much of the area burning.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 9, 2020)

Regardless of who owns the forest a lot of the management has been through the courts by way of lawsuits from environmental groups which prevent the logging(thinning) of forest.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 9, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> Regardless of who owns the forest a lot of the management has been through the courts by way of lawsuits from environmental groups which prevent the logging(thinning) of forest.


Which has nothing to do with allowing people to build there, we should not be building in wildfire and wildfire interface zones, thinned or not.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 9, 2020)

Agreed but that didn't stop the pioneers, did it?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 9, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Agreed but that didn't stop the pioneers, did it?


We have moved on since then.


----------



## JCraver (Nov 9, 2020)

No we haven't; or at least not all of us.  Your alternative is taller buildings in more cities, packing more and more people into tighter and tighter areas?  Yuck.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 9, 2020)

mark handler said:


> we should not be building in wildfire and wildfire interface zones, thinned or not.


Following that logic then do not let people build in coastal hurricane and flood zones or high seismic zones.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 10, 2020)

JCraver said:


> No we haven't; or at least not all of us.  Your alternative is taller buildings in more cities, packing more and more people into tighter and tighter areas?  Yuck.


*MY ALTERNATIVE?*
*Don't presume.*


----------



## mark handler (Nov 10, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> Following that logic then do not let people build in coastal hurricane and flood zones or high seismic zones.


That is correct


----------



## JCraver (Nov 10, 2020)

mark handler said:


> *MY ALTERNATIVE?*
> *Don't presume.*



My apologies.  What was I to infer by "we should not be building in wildfire and wildfire interface zones, thinned or not", if not your opinion that we should be building other places instead?  Have a lot of other places to build in Cali., do you?


----------



## JCraver (Nov 10, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> Following that logic then do not let people build in coastal hurricane and flood zones or high seismic zones.





mark handler said:


> That is correct



If wildfire, hurricane, flood, and seismic zones are out, then you might as well lock the doors to Cali. and call it done.  Where do you build if you tell everybody in those areas no?


----------



## tmurray (Nov 10, 2020)

It truly is a delicate balance between an owner's right to the enjoyment of their property and the safety of the public. The main issue I struggle with is the people who continue to rebuild in these areas using tax payer money. 

Is densification the answer? It is for some. Others prefer wide open spaces. Luckily, America has availability to meet most, if not all, of people's ideal living situations. One of the positive impacts of COVID is that it has forced companies to embrace options for employees to work from home, removing doubt that it is a viable approach to business in many people's minds. 

For instance, we have a lot of people moving to our province from more dense metropolitan areas. They are able to work from home here and can fly in for the one or two meetings a month that would need to be an in-person meeting. The best thing is that it is actually cheaper for them to do this because the cost of living in these dense areas is so much higher than my little rural province.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 11, 2020)

JCraver said:


> If wildfire, hurricane, flood, and seismic zones are out, then you might as well lock the doors to Cali. and call it done.  Where do you build if you tell everybody in those areas no?


Not all of CA are in  wildfire and wildfire interface zones, hurricane, flood, and High seismic zones.
you need to look at the hazard and the frequency. If the "disaster" happens ever year or two, you need to design for that hazard. 
People are rebuilding with wood in the areas that just burned, people are rebuilding in the New Orleans, ninth ward, where it floods out every few years, WE (US Tax dollars and high insurance) are paying for that.


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 14, 2020)

mark handler said:


> Not all of CA are in  wildfire and wildfire interface zones, hurricane, flood, and High seismic zones.
> you need to look at the hazard and the frequency. If the "disaster" happens ever year or two, you need to design for that hazard.
> People are rebuilding with wood in the areas that just burned, people are rebuilding in the New Orleans, ninth ward, where it floods out every few years, WE (US Tax dollars and high insurance) are paying for that.


I do not really care where people build or live as long as they do not expect me to pay for their repairs/replacement when the bad thing happens. Most if not all insurance companies now determine your rate based on your zip code. Greater incidence of loss results in higher premiums--as it should.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 14, 2020)

Min&Max said:


> I do not really care where people build or live as long as they do not expect me to pay for their repairs/replacement when the bad thing happens. Most if not all insurance companies now determine your rate based on your zip code. Greater incidence of loss results in higher premiums--as it should.


We all pay, though insurance or by taxes, we all pay.


----------

