Posts: 229
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2009
There have been some rumors that this ban was due to some unholy alliance with a local bamboo home manufacturer, but I haven't found any truth to it when looking deeper. FYI, the 'stamp' would not be on the timbers themselves, but the term refers to the ICC approval.
I believe there has been some resistance on the other islands recently also, in regards to the use of structural bangkirai.
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
structural elements must be graded, rated or listed in any code
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
LOL... yeah, a hardwood like bangkirai compared to relative softwood crap firs. LMAOROF. Not tested... LOL... try again.
http://www.indonesiasakti.com/materials.html
If ever there were a lamer argument to support an illegal trade act... point it out please!
This material far exceeds any U.S. grown timber for use as a structural member. U.S. lumbers cant even hold a candle to it.
Anyone with half a brain cell and who has worked with these types of hardwoods wouldn't even consider challenging them in such a manner.
Evidently the CoH administrator who's enacted this ban cheated his way through college too cause the stupidity in his position is self evident to anyone with half an oz. of common sense in this industry.
While we're at it; why don't we just ban aluminum for building aircraft and use pot metal instead... what a load of BS.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 229
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2009
Nobody here has said that bangkirai isn't hard.
But the CoH is not looking for material testing done by each individual supplier. They use the ICC standard, and if someone pays the $$ to do it, surely the results will be satisfactory, and then the door will be open to all to import this wood as a structural material.
http://www.icc-es.org/
Edited to add link.
Posts: 229
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2009
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
LOL... yeah, a hardwood like bangkirai compared to relative softwood crap firs. LMAOROF. Not tested... LOL... try again.
http://www.indonesiasakti.com/materials.html
If ever there were a lamer argument to support an illegal trade act... point it out please!
This material far exceeds any U.S. grown timber for use as a structural member. U.S. lumbers cant even hold a candle to it.
Anyone with half a brain cell and who has worked with these types of hardwoods wouldn't even consider challenging them in such a manner.
Evidently the CoH administrator who's enacted this ban cheated his way through college too cause the stupidity in his position is self evident to anyone with half an oz. of common sense in this industry.
While we're at it; why don't we just ban aluminum for building aircraft and use pot metal instead... what a load of BS.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Uh, that's easy to answer . . . because aluminum has been tested, and because it has nothing to do with the CoH.
Nobody here is arguing with you about the strength of bangkirai, which you seem to be repeating again and again. It's a matter of simply getting the ESR done by ICC. Same for any other building material permitted for structural use in CoH.
It's likely a waste of time for you to declare someone you don't know at CoH a senseless, stupid cheater, when you don't seem to be really focusing on the issue.
Perhaps you can try framing in doug fir and siding in merbau for a similar look? Or, just go ahead and build unpermitted in bangkirai, forget the permit and forget the insurance. CoH has no authority to prevent you from importing a container of bangkirai here.
Posts: 8,443
Threads: 1,031
Joined: May 2003
It is my opinion that the CoH Building Department is not your problem.
What is occurring in general is a new ICC code coming into place. That code, at least very specific parts of it, were likely written under the heavy influence of big lumber interests for whom new stricter code requirements are a way to reduce and minimize the competition. They are very, very good at this. The CoH is not very, very good at much of anything frankly.
One of my personal frustrations was trying to sell a plywood substitute for use in California schools. The material was fireproof, termite proof, no toxic glue out gassing and the modular classroom manufacturers wanted it. It just needed the blessing of the CA state architect. Leaving Sacramento I had learned that cyclic shear testing would be required for our product. Was cyclic shear testing required of plywood? No. Was there a defined acceptable test standard for cyclic shear testing? No.
Meanwhile my products are acceptable in Hawaii.
So our lumber industry competitors hold the market while a new entry was held to standards that don't yet exist.
I understand your frustration.
The building industry is increasingly under corporate control and that means less choice for us and more profit for them. For your hardwoods to be accepted either your suppliers pony up the cash for certification (prices go up) or you find a sympathetic local engineer to stamp your lumber. The last code (I haven't yet reviewed the ICC for this) contained language to the effect that: "Nothing in this code shall be construed to disallow alternative methods or materials". That statement meant that the local building departments could still allow alternatives if they chose to. That is where a local engineer arguing your case at the building department might have sway.... on a case by case basis. Costly and time consuming for you.
The ICC may or may not disallow the local use of Ohia posts which were okay under the most recent code I quoted. Local architect or engineer would approve the use of that ungraded species of wood.
Never mind. Best wishes.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Fine... but this is not about a man made or man engineered material, it's about a natural product... wood, not plywood, particle board or composite manufactured boards.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 229
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2009
Another problem is that there are half a dozen or more indonesian home fabricators marketing in the State of Hawaii, and nobody wants to pay the $$ for the ICC test to satisfy CoH, because it will open the door for all their competitors too. They are not planning to share the cost, and there is no way for a company that pays for the testing to keep the 'stamp' for their own use.
Posts: 229
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2009
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
Fine... but this is not about a man made or man engineered material, it's about a natural product... wood, not plywood, particle board or composite manufactured boards.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Wao, you're all over the place with this topic. The bangkirai is certainly a natural product, but so is the "crap fir" that you referred to with such disdain earlier. And there is surely as much chance of material anomalies in a natural product as there is in a manufactured product.
The local bamboo house company has done the ICC-ESR. You can search "bamboo" on the ICC website previously posted. The whole idea of industry standards in testing is so that there is an objective standard.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
LOL... Thanks Rob.
Ric, etc..
Eh gent's I'm only ticked at the CoH here... not any of you.
Let’s be perfectly honest though. Fir is crap relative to these hardwoods
Anyhow...
I'm not going to adhere to a prejudicial prohibition placed on a perfectly good lumber species. This sort of nonsense was to be stopped long ago. The ICC is not the only legitimate form of rating or approval and the administrative decision is baseless whilst clinging to a thread of selective blindness.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
