Notice how back in the day the corners of the boards were sharp. Now they are planed/chamfered. There are several reasons for this: 1. Chamfered edges help construction workers to avoid splinters and other minor injuries. 2. The rounded edges make it easier for the boards to slide and travel on the conveyor belts (during production) and are easier to stack. 3. The boards are (slightly) more fire resistant as the edges usually catch on fire first. If you found the video entertaining and educational and you would like me to keep producing similar content, consider clicking the Subscribe button. That helps a lot!
I have seen a lot of old framing using actual 2x4. None of the stuff I have seen was planned down on sight. You can still see the rough cut on the surface from the saw mill.
My house was built in 1969. It's 2x4's measure 1-3/4" x 3-3/4". They still measure this dimension. It was like this for a long time before going to 1.5 x 3.5. It is the planed dimension after planing a rough cut 2x4.
My 1883 balloon frame house is made from oversized yellow pine stock measuring up to 2-1/8" wide. There is slight variation in width from one to the next.
Repeatedly the industry said, "without affecting the strength". I'd love to see a load capacity comparison between 100 year old 2" x 4" boards and the smaller modern stud boards with grain nowhere near as dense.
@@TheEngineeringHub a comparison of modern lumber to these standards would only indirectly measure load capacity but, might still be quite interesting: nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/nbstechnologic/nbstechnologicpapert319.pdf
We're encouraged to buy FSC certified, sustainable lumber. That's a good thing. But there's a flip side. Until the early 1990's it was easy to buy slow grown, slow dried lumber, perfectly straight, heavy and incredibly strong. What's on the market today is fast grown, kiln dried, light as a feather and warped. It's not nearly as strong as the lumber we used to buy. To compensate for the lower quality the size should increase, not decrease.
@@LemonySnicket-EUC Where I'm at, 2x6s literally cost twice as much as a 2x4, yet somehow less than a 2x8. Also, treated 2x6s are cheaper than KD. Plenty of each in stock, so supply and demand doesn't seem to be a large factor. Figure that one out.
@@TroIIingThemSoftly same here in West Texas. They are Doug Fir however and superior wood. It's worth the upgrade for me. I know it's not mainstream. A bit more insulation as well. Not worth it to most.
Shipping in a part of overhead for business operation which can directly affect profits as you will spend more or less depending on shipping costs. When dealing in commodities like lumber shipping is one of the biggest factors in price for said commodity. More so when you look at it in a grander scale as the market expands and potential customers are further away. That said competition can help keep quality high and prices low and frankly there is not enough in the modern economy to effectively control greed.
Canada and the US essentially have a 40 year unsolved lumber dispute. US industry insists on tariffs for Canadian lumber. As for the Big Mac, there are massive wage differences for workers in US and Denmark, but the price of the Big Mac is very similar.
It had everything to do with customers being stupid. They'd rather buy a smaller cheaper burger because it's cheaper and then complain that it's smaller, instead of buying a normal sized normal priced burger. And it's the same story with lumber. There's always plenty of companies not following this stupidity trend and putting out fair products for fair prices, and they universally get pushed out of business because people won't buy their stuff, instead opting for the crappier cheaper alternatives. And then the same people complain that everyone only makes crappy cheap products. I swear, 95% of the population doesn't deserve the voting rights. But if political voting restriction can be conceptually enforced, there's no stopping morons from voting with their wallets.
Spent 25 years in a house in the San Diego area that was built in 1898. All the studs were true 2x4", quartersawn old-growth redwood - absolutely stunning.
@@I999-g2sI'm going to look at it from a brighter side and say at least it's been maintained for over a hundred years. I think it would be a bigger tragedy to let existing redwood products rot. At least when it is cared for it prevents the use of new materials.
Man im glad i watched this video, as a carpenter it has always frustrated me having to work around different lumber widths and thickness but seeing this video, i cant imagine the rage and frustration being a builder or carpenter back when standards were being changed
Those older cross sections show something else pretty important when evaluating lumber, which is how close the growth rings were back in the day compared to modern day lumber.
@@shamancredible8632 Have you ever been to the south? Lol. You can treat it with whatever you want. The sun, rain, and humidity is going to destroy it.
I used to live in a house from late 1890, in 1983 the house got hit by lightning and the top floor burned down, over 30 years later the old wood seemed to be in better shape than the "new" from the 80s. If the new lumber was from todays lumber it probably would be an even clearer difference in quality. Old pine vs new pine planks are like to different type of wood. @@esyr
@@smasher.338 Yes, the sealer will eventually get damaged and fail. You need to reapply it. No products last forever, many won't even meet what it says on the can, even more so if you live somewhere with an extreme environment. This is part of regular maintenance. Do you clean your house regularly or only once then never again? It's the same thing
I worked in a southern pine sawmill from 2006 to 2009 -- from what I remember, most green-sawn lumber started out much closer to the stated dimensions (eg. 1.75" x 3.75"). It is then kiln-dried to a moisture content of around 8 to 15%, which causes it to shrink to about 1.70"x3.65" or so. After that, it is either then sold directly as rough lumber (usually for export only) or it goes to the Planer Mill. There, the dried boards are loaded, X-ray'd (to check for metal objects that could destroy planer blades), and then planed to final nominal dimension. The board is then re-measured for moisture content with an inline moisture meter, and re-measured for final dimensions with multiple laser curtains. It then goes to a grader line where the graders put special marks on the boards using big fluorescent colored crayon-type things, and these marks are read by an optical reader which causes the boards to get trimmed to final length (based on the marks, bad ends might get trimmed off), and then finally sorted into the appropriate bin. After each bin gets full, it is unloaded onto the final conveyor, auto-stacked on a palette, wrapped, tagged, and then stored in a warehouse/shed for loading onto a truck or train car. Also, everything was recycled. All of the big wood chips were sold to nearby companies for making paper pulp or composites. And sawdust was used in the plant's furnace/boiler as fuel for producing steam for the steam kilns.
I worked in lumber and the kilns were steamed by burning a "hogfuel" mixture of bark, chips and sawdust. It was a science to get that blend right for emissions standards. I didnt think it was possible to burn only sawdust and still meet those standards since it would burn to fast and hot for a typical boiler. Were they made into pressed blocks first? Did that work from an environmental standpoint?
Even though in Finland we use the metric system, we still have certain lumber sizes often expressed in inches, though they aren't exact. But a two-by-four is 50 x 100 mm, which 1.97 x 3.94 inches. As far as I can tell, that is the size at which you purchase it in the store. So despite of getting rid of the units, we mostly kept the measures. In the US, the units were kept but the measures were not.
@@Ekuahx okay, I researched a bit more into this, and we have sawmill products of e.g. 50x100mm in Finland, but rough planed timber that is 48x97mm. I would assume it's the same in Norway and perhaps also in Germany? Though it's odd that there is still this 1mm difference on the longer edge.
I worked at a sawmill in the early '70s. At that time the finished product standards were changed to 1-1/2" X 3-1/2". Because mills were more accurate at the time, the rough cut standard was changed to 1-3/4" X 3-3/4" to reduce waste. this caused quite a stir at the mill because now all the saws had to be recalibrated for the standards of advancing the log on the carriage.
in the 70's everything got cheaper. because people had less money. and they used AL wire n them homes as well. the buildings are the best time frame to buy if you go looking.
Sorry. I'm not familiar enough with the making of lumber products, but how it old tech more accurate than today? Seems like the only industry that goes out it's way to fuck itself in new and not so exciting ways
My parents owned a house that was built sometime around the first world war - the framing was all jarrah in actual 2x4 size. When my Dad did some renovations he had to scour all the salvage yards in the region to find similar wood so the work he did would be just as sturdy as the original house.
The combination of dimensional decrease and density decrease (fast-grown) has only led us to use 2x6 for anything but hanging drywall and small sheds. Some great old books have plans that aren't buildable anymore.
Depends on what wood you’re using. With doug fir you would be fine but it is a bit more expensive. Western SPF is also still quite strong. Do you use SYP for the most part?
@@thatguy1917 With the reduction in cladding thickness removing the advantage of 2x6 walls. I remodel homes and the older ones are always cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. Over all superior R value in older homes, hands down. Check it for yourself. Seal around windows and doors in an older home is all you have to do to skyrocket the R value. Adding insulation is not more effective than dead air space. Insulation works using the principle of dead air.
I attempted building a deck and planter beds a few years ago with limited experience. I drew up crude plans, ran measurements, factored the cost, went to home depot, and was entirely confused to find the 2x4s weren’t actually 2x4”. Thank you for explaining lol.
That is seriously whack lol. Reminds me of that space mission where metric vs imperial measurements didn't actually add up when put together after conversion factors
Yeah, most places where you can buy wood boards are typically 1-1/2" by 3-1/2", or 1/2" thinner in both the height and width because they've been surface planed at the mill to get rid of rough edges before shipping.
@@bigsky1970 As a metric user ( 1-1/2" by 3-1/2", or 1/2" ) might as well be alien writing, I have no idea what any of these messurements are. Im sorry but 38mm x 90mm is alot easier to understand. ( thats a 2x4 in metric ) best part is it can be converted to metres and centimetres easily.
Important to remember that the growers had access to old growth forests that had quality trees back when the 2x4 was first milled. The structural capacity of that old growth wood (particularly Southern Pine or SYP) was substantial. Once the greedy mills had raped the hills of all the useable trees, most of which were 100 years old or more, the hills were replanted with faster-growing varieties. Of course, none of the mills were willing to wait 100 years for a properly grown tree, so most replanted trees were cut at less than 40 years old. The consequence is that the poor soil, which was not allowed to "recharge" since it was replanted on bare soil (the natural consequence of clear cutting) and the trees that regrew had lower structural density. Thus, in the 1950s, during the post war building boom, engineers noted that SYP lumber was flexing more than their standards told them it should be. The growers/millers had to have the standard altered to match the weaker product they were producing. This altered the design of houses. Since there were no large beams anymore because trees were not being allowed to grow past 20 years in age, house design accommodated the inclusion of the weaker wood by creating the "balloon" frame house rather than the traditional post and beam method used prior to the 1950s. A balloon frame has thinner walls (weak 2x4s stacked closer together) and the new strengths standards were accepted and adopted. However, after mismanagement by the lumber companies, the trees continued to get weaker and weaker, so the standard was AGAIN lowered in the 1970s and house design had too change, again. Long spans disappeared. High ceilings went away, and the single story ranch house became the trade's only economical, structurally sound product. It does not end there. Continued demand for wood products outpaced the mis-managed tree farms' capacity to grow sturdy trees, and in the 1990s the lumber standard was lowered, again, and construction methods changed again. Now you can't even find a replacement wood joist to re-do the joists of a house built in the 1920s because the lumber of the same dimension, even custom cut, is much weaker than the original, so mid-span bracing is required. It is true that today's houses really are just "mud and toothpicks" compared to the substantial, dimensional lumber frame houses that our parents grew up in. So sad.
As someone who will probably never own a house (thanks federal jew reserve), but still an engineer at heart. Where do you see those of us that want to live in a solid house going? Concrete? I worry about the cost of such a structure and the high degree of human error possible in mixing and curing.
But would it have changed the trends to remodel the remodel that was done 5 years ago ? I think not , and would have been more wasteful of us to insist on the higher standards . And of course would narrow the market of affordability .
Not only is new wood not as strong, but old growth wood just lasts forever. Facia board me and my dad installed on our house 12 years ago is already starting to break down, while I've seen siding on civil war era houses still in decent condition. The paint is pretty much gone, but that 100 year old wood is still rock solid. That dense grain is something else.
Smells great when you cut that sap wood too. Just make sure that you bring double the amount of saw blades. I lived in a House in Utah made with local old Douglass Fir. Tougher than nails.
@@ShuberFuber He also told me in his handwritten letter (he does not trust the internet e-mail system) that he was able to gather seeds and rooted cuttings from that country and planted them in an another Southeast Asian country where he has a small mini-plantation of food forest and they all grew successfully and his family (he is an American who married a Vietnamese woman of mixed parentage) is already systematically producing more rooted cuttings from it. They even have to use a tungsten carbide cobalt stellite cutting tools because of the hardness of even of the young stems. He also told me he will never establish a plantation in America for even though he is an American he will never trust the U.S government anymore and FOREVER!
I'm a carpenter in the UK. We generally refer to a number of timber sizes that you refer to as 2x4s as 4x2s. Firstly there is rough sawn timber, which is roughly 4" × 2". Then there is PAR (planed all round) or PSE (planed square edged) which is usually a better quality timber for finish work, this is approximately 1/4" under 4x2 in each dimension to allow for planing down from timber that started at 4" x 2". Then we have a treated construction lumber which I have heard referred to as 4x2 regularised or 4x2 eased edge, this is around 45mm by 95mm with rounded corners and a fairly smooth finish. Finally we have what you usually refer to as 2x4, which is usually untreated construction timber which we call 4x2 CLS (canadian lumber standard) and has a fairly smooth finish with rounded corners. 4x2 CLS is generally used for internal construction such as studwork and is 38mm x 90mm. Because of this variety I rarely hear people in the trade refer to 4x2 without a qualifier, such as CLS.
I need a pressure treated 2x4x12 and I now sound like a fake carpenter thanks to that logic. How about this...I need a long greeny wood with a side that isn't like calcium deficient bones and is straight like flag pole. @@blairs6664
But it also allows us to get as much out of every log. We don’t have the large diameter trees to harvest anymore, and the volume reduction allows us to get the most out of the wood so we don’t have to log more.
I recall our first house we purchased in Richmond, Indiana in 1987. The house had been constructed in 1926 and it was a high quality wood framed house. They had covered the exterior with wood planks, steel mesh then stucco. The stucco was still very hard and in great shape when we moved in. I recall over the next few years rewiring and replumbing the house. I lost count of how many spade drill bits i had to use drilling thru the wood for the projects. I measured the 2 x 4's and they were huge compared to today's standards, they in fact were 2" x 4" and strong and hard as an ox!!! Even many of the boards were oak and it took forever to bore a hole thru the floor joists with the smoke from the new drill bits lol!! They sure built quality houses back then, built to last!!! Oh yeah those floor joists were 2" x 12" spaced every 16 inches, that floor did not give at all when you walked on it. Makes you miss the quality of those days.
I do wonder if there is not a surviva bility bias here. My house was built in 1910 and is amazing in its structure. But those are the ones that survived because they where well built. Those who where cheaply made arent there anymore. In a 100 years they might wish for a 2023 built house, because by then only the very best of what we built will remain.
"Makes you miss the quality of those days." It was human overpopulation who made that vanish, like the video said early on- local mills ran out of raw logs because all the locally available forests were already cut down, people wasted massive amounts of trees and lumber in the 19th century. The Chicago Worlds Fair- all the massive buildings were built out of lumber and "staff"- basically plaster and straw because the whole thing was temporary! The ground was muddy so they literally PAVED the ground with wood planks to walk on. Some months later or whenever it ended, everything was torn down, destroyed and you'd never know what was there- google the pictures, all the buildings were huge Victorian and Federal styled buildings with massive columns, pediments, ornaments, resembling the Whitehouse, and other such buildings . A massive commemorative arch some 5- 6 stories high was built over 5th Ave in NYC to celebrate one short event- google the Dewey Arch, it was up for less than a year and constructed of lumber and staff, and then destroyed. Since the lumber had lot of nails in it, cuts and was in the weather for a year, one can assume the lumber was likely all burned. "Dewey Arch was a triumphal arch that stood from 1899 to 1900 at Madison Square in Manhattan, New York. It was erected for a parade in honor of Admiral George Dewey With only two months remaining before the parade, the committee decided to build the arch and its colonnade out of staff, a plaster-based material used previously for temporary buildings at several World's Fairs. Modeled after the Arch of Titus in Rome, the Dewey Arch was decorated with the works of twenty-eight sculptors and topped by a large quadriga (modeled by Ward) depicting four horses drawing a ship. The arch was illuminated at night with electric light bulbs. After the parade on September 30, 1899, the arch began to deteriorate. An attempt to raise money to rebuild it in stone (as had been done for the arch in Washington Square Park) failed, owing to the growing unpopularity of the Philippine War. The arch was demolished in 1900,and the larger sculptures sent to Charleston for an exhibit, after which they were either destroyed or lost."
Good video. As an engineer and former commodities broker, you hit all the important points.I sold more Western SPF spruce pine fir, which is almost 100% spruce now in Canada to the USA. My competition was southern yellow Pine SYP. SYP was stronger and more resistant to decay, but the end user preferred our lighter and easier to cut and nail WSPF. Our eastern SPF was stronger than WSPF but too heavy because it was air dried versus the Kiln dried lumber coming from British Columbia. Our market size was 99 percent on cost. Freight and the exchange rate determined the market area, so I can see how the mills struggled to keep weight and size to a minimum. We were more of a trucking company than a commodity broker, so our advantage was optimising freight. We had agreements with US truckers that came to Canada and would give us a cut rate so as to not have to go home empty, But when the Canadian dollar jumped our market shrunk huge and I could not sell a stick 200 km past the USA border. I went from making good money chatting on the phone with my buddies once a week asking then how much they needed this week, to unemployed in a matter of a few months.
If you added a section about the tables, building code and structural design that may eliminate any ignorant comments about the structural integrity. As engineers we have tables which reference the different grades and species of lumber by their applicable strengths. The scrap lumber is often referred to as economy studs are not permitted by any building code I am aware of, and the building grade is referred to as number 2 and better. Lumber like cedar is no longer accepted by most codes as the lumber no longer has a predictable strength, but this is a function of the properties of new growth, not the Mills. Issues with the historic quality of the wood are more a function of historically inept deforestation policies.
That's not right man. I understand that increasing the price would cause a housing shortage but y'all need a livable wage too. National economics is quite complex. I have huge respect for people that keep working on the lumber industry no matter how little pay they get
My childhood home in upstate New York was built in 1911. When it was remodeled in the 1990s, it was found that wall studs were actually a genuine 2" x 4". And the studs in the outside walls ran the entire 2-story height, maybe 25' at the longest.
In 1987, I remodeled a house on Long Island that had been built in the 1920s. All 2 x 4s in the house were actually 2" x 4", so I had a lot of problems replacing rotted studs with the new 2 x 4s which actually were 1-1/2 x 3-1/2, so they didn't match the dimensions of the existing studs along side them. The old studs also had sharp edges and were much harder, causing smoking when drilled or cut.
In that case, you'd just contact a local mill and buy rough cut lumber which would start out at an actual 2" x 4" dimension. Not like having planed sides matters much for studs anyway.
There are three sizings for timber, roughsawn, dressed and gauged, all with different qualities of surface. In New Zealand which is pretty consistent with other countries, r/s is still described in imperial, 4x2 or in metric, nominally 100x50, and gauged is still called 100x50 even though it is 94x47. Dressed is the finest commercial finish and dressing makes sticks even smaller, but dressed timbers are used for finishing not framing, and framing timber is not usually used for finishing. I’m 64 and nothing has changed in sizing during my lifetime. Kiln dried timber is still the uniform 94x47. Metric sizing has been used since about 1970. Houses built by the state, “state houses” in the 1950s were engineered differently and framing timbers were square edged and smaller but I would not necessarily call the timber dressed. The timber was the native rimu. Most framing during my lifetime has been treated radiata pine, pinus radiata, also known as Monterey pine as it is a native of Monterey California. Monterey pine was used from as early as WWI but not commercially milled until much later. My Dad worked at mills as a youth in the 1950s, pressure treating pine with tanalith, aka tanalising. Timber on colonial buildings, say before 1900 was sized a bit differently and even beyond WWI finishing timbers were a bit heavier. Some time around WWI some odd numbered sticks, eg 5x2 were dropped and just even numbers used for framing 4x2, 6x2, 8x2, etc, with 3x2 retained for partitions and light exterior work, and 4x3 for bearers. Obviously the reasons you give for sizing are specific to America so are novel to me, and a totally unnecessary explanation for something that is otherwise self explanatory. As for sizing and strength, my preference is to use roughsawn as for one I believe it is stronger than gauged, but also for the aesthetic where framing is involved. For work on my own house I prefer the smallest sticks possible with closer spacing rather than deep sticks and fewer. As code requires treatment for insects and that means toxic chemicals when using pine I opted instead for Douglas Fir bought wet and juicy and put them up wet. They have mellowed from pink and white to golden brown and remain completely unfinished after fifteen years. The problem with using roughsawn timber is that it is rough, and not the best sticks.
in NZ you guys grow a lot of doug fir which is great wood. Far better than the pine the east coast of the US uses. Out west in the US it's mostly doug fir and ponderosa pine
My house was built in 1945, in Canada. Wall stud 2x4's were only 4ft long and 1.75"x3.75" in dimension. Every 'stud' is actually 3 boards; two in line, sistered to another to 'connect' them. Very strange, and a pain to work on because anything new built on top needs a 1/4" strip attached to the new "2x4". One nice thing? Those old studs smell glorious when cut or drilled!
Actually, the more modern dimension rules are not applicable to 'all' dimensional sizes. The 2x4 and 2x6 are 1.5" x 3.5" and 1.5" x 5.5", respectively as stated in the video. But once you get to a 2x8 and above you're looking at 1.5" x 7.25"; a 2x10 would be 9.25" thick, and a 2x12 would be 11.25" thick. Anyone in the industry knows this, already. But a novice might find it confusing, thus the mention.
Then it’s not a 2x4, 2x6 or 2x8. Call them what they are. 1.5x3.5 is the proper name, I would literally sue someone if I ordered a load of lumber and it was all measured incorrectly to the order.
@@lilkittygirl Really, so you expect a grapefruit to have grapes in it? You might want to measure the waist on your pants, you will find out the number on the tag is not correct. In fact, if you look around you, you will learn your whole life is a lie.
@@lilkittygirlThen you would be laughed out of court. Just like if you sued McDonald's because your Quarterpounder came with a patty less than a quarter pound.
When I remodeled my rental built in 1910, I pulled out a few old studs to expand old closets. Those were exactly 2”x3”. Maybe other sizes were common back then? In any case, those studs were rock hard and heavy from old growth trees with super dense rings. Despite the prevalence of termites in the area, those 112 year old studs were untouched.
As someone who works for a forest company, it’s more about getting as many boards out of a log as possible than it is about shipping. We don’t have the timber we used to have, and we can’t waste anything.
@@viscountalpha it is replanted. Where I live we’re on an eighty year growing cycle, but the first cycle of planted timber won’t be ready for harvest for another 10-15 years. A lot of timber has also been lost to fires and pests, and over the years we learned that it’s not sustainable to harvest everywhere. After all of the harvesting constraints, the timber we have left to harvest is the stuff companies have avoided logging for decades, smaller trees. The most common species in my area is spruce, the bole of which actually has a cone shape, so the top of a spruce tree will always be smaller. The thing with these crappy, small, poorly grown trees is that the fibres are really dense, so in material strength it will be stronger than many faster growing trees.
The majority of 2x4's I have bought recently have actually measured closer to 1 3/8" x 3 3/8". It's not an uncommon phenomenon either. Candy bars have been getting smaller each couple of years or so as well!
This is called shrinkflation. Instead of increasing price and keep the size, shrink the size and keep the price (not always true), basically misleading customers.
@@samuraijackson241The alternative is having a bunch of stupid people whining about higher prices because they are too dense to understand what inflation is.
@@Katt1n Inflation is caused by Democrats stealing everyone's savings by printing trillions of dollars out of thin air and then giving it to their buddies.
I salvaged some interior studs from the Olivia in Joplin Missouri. The building was finished in 1906. The studs are 3 1/2" inches wide by 1 5/8" thick. Still perfect for walls. Just have to take into consideration the extra 1/8" thickness when laying out doors and such.
most people that came in knew what was up. then again, I worked in deliveries, not lumber. Just ended up spending most of my shifts there if I wasn't outside. the general demographic around that store was also older (if someone wasn't older they typically still knew since the state and region is more rural/suburban), so that could have an effect.
@@richardwebb2348Because people are idiots and think retail workers have control over the manufacturer and wholesalers , tons of videos like that out there 😂
I knew something about the history of the modern 2 by 4 being much smaller than 2 by 4 inches, but this is a great explanation. I also remember seeing the old raw lumber used in older buildings in the New England area, especially barns and other rough structures.
Examining my 120-year old home, in many situations, we use larger lumber sizes today to make up for those smaller dimensions (e.g. roof joists, some floor joists). "Real" 2x4s are much larger and were typically used in framing unaltered. It helped a lot that trees were much higher quality and more resistant to rot.
I’m caught by the ring size. In the end shot comparison .. the older lumber has very tight rings. Where the finished piece are quite thick and seem less dense. My house was built in 1883 , you’d be amazed at the wood in this house. Not finish wood , but the studding , and T&G lapping .. no drywall here. (Except a couple rooms that were remodeled in the 80’s. And it is just laid over the original lap. ) ..
Yes, as an aside, I hate drywall..I call it "paper and chalk wall"...good for fire resistance, not much else..crappy weak, hollow walls, I like something solid.
@@drawincode1800 ahh an Aussie. I should’ve guessed. Yeah ,naw I’m good m8. But I might use that in a song. If it goes platinum I’ll send you royalties 😂.. 🤠🎸🎶🤙
Interesting. Over here in Estonia (and in most of Europe probably) the 2x4 equivalent is 50x100mm which is much closer to an actual 2x4 in dimensions than the contemporary 2x4 in the US. That being said, no houses are built using 50x100 lumber here. It's at least 50x150 (or 2x6) but more commonly 50x200 (2x8) or sometimes even 50x250 (2x10).
@@XPimKossibleX At least here in Sweden we have climate zones prescribing, for different regions, the load necessary to withstand because of snow thickness and insulation necessary for keeping downy energy consumption
Having smaller studs closer together means that lining and cladding materials don't need to be as rigid, because they are supported at shorter spans along their length. Have a look at a plasterboard manufacturer's installation instructions and it becomes very clear that more frequent, smaller studs have a big advantage!
I work at a sawmill and planermill. The initial cut by the saws is indeed 2" x 4", (I've measured it myself), it then goes into the kilns for drying, which of course shrinks everything, then goes into the planermill, cutting it down to 1.5" x 3.5", just like he said in the video.
Your mill is likely one of the outliers today; in the name of recovery our mill(stud mill, 330k FBM/10hr shift target) targets 1.63x3.7 off of the saw lines for a 2x4.
3:55 you are completely correct. Im from Seattle, Wa moved to Elko Nv and was going to build with 2x4s. I was highly advised to use 2x6 min here. I am glad i took thier advice.
Some of this video needs to also be about how the lumber has changed in quality over the years. Older lumber was slow growth lumber and was inherently stronger than most of today's lumber grown for its growth rate and time to maturity.
Very true. Lumber with rounded edges , called wane where the bark grew , is more common as lumber manufacturers squeeze every board possible from logs. All of our lumber ( the mill I worked in was first owned by Federal , then IP finally became and still is West Fraser) Over 30 + years lumber came to be cut by machinery that uses lasers to measure cut logs and that info is sent to a computer that determines how best to cut for efficiency and finally the computer guides the hydraulics that set knives and saws to get the most from the least. Nothing is wasted. All mills like the size I worked have a system called " conversion " that compares weight in tons of logs brought in to amount of lumber in thousand board feet are produced. The lower the conversion is the more efficient the mill is. Companies are always trying to lower " Conversion". When I started in 83 our production was 155 TBF per shift. Due to maintenance as well as saw and knife change mills only run two shifts max a day. I retired a few years ago and production was over .5 million BF per shift. Makes ya wonder with 65 + or- loads of logs per shift how any trees remain. Well production mainly increased due to more efficient cutting machinery but preventative maintaining equipment practices increased and the bad word " down time " was reduced as well as more efficient repairs were implemented.
I worked many years in a sawmill and with the modern high tech sawing drying and planning equipment they cut their lumber to very tight tolerances. They rough cut the lumber about 1/8" over nominal size. The saws they use are thinner than a skill saw blade to further maximize the volume of lumber out of each log.
Living in a house built in 1901, then expanded in 1948 and again in 2000, I have seen all the various sizes mentioned in the video and wondered when all the changes happened. Very informative.
My house is same sort of thing a 200 year old part a 80 year old part and a 30 year old part. The oldest part is built with old ships timbers, incredible wood.
I work in a modern lumber mill in Canada and we do not rough cut a 2x4 to those dimensions. It's more like 1.7"x3.7". We kiln dry it and then plane it down to 1.500"x3.500" if we are doing our job well. We have a very fancy grading system to keep us in check.
Not just the size has changed, so has the quality. I am rehabbing a old house which has the old sizes but more striking is the quality. Even the lathing is clear and knot free. The ring density is like 3 times what you get now.
yes, many "2x4's" at the box stores, are warped, twisted, bowed...and it's NOT the cull piles. Many are also so bark-edged that it creates strength problems, and problems using them, especially when they are badly bark-edged at the ends. I suspect this is the result of using "logs" that are too small to even get a good "1-1/2 x 3-1/2" out of...
@@voightkampffchampYou can facetiously say that, have you considered _why_ that is? It is _not_ simply that we used up all the preexisting trees and are now stuck with new growth. The tree farms actively encourage trees to grow fast, and harvest them young. Why?
@@yellingintothewind I think every 10-15 years tree farms clear out trees to make space for the others to grow larger and that's probably why a lot of lumber is from young trees. Was there a particular recent increase in the amount of young growth lumber? I'm not from the US so idk.
Interesting to see the story laid out. I will also point out that in 1963 or there abouts, in Canada at least, 2x6 wound up being used where a "real" 2x4 would have been acceptable. What you do not address is that the actual lumber itself is vastly inferior to what it was in the 1960's. Pick up a 4x4 and better than even odds it is the exact centre of a log. Rarely can you find one that is cut from a decent size log.
I was going to make that comment about the grain of the wood. I wonder about the support strength for vertical force, or lateral force. The manufactured home I am renovating uses 2 X 3 Studs notched for electrical and nailers. The roof trusses are true 2 X2 but have sagged due to aging and water damage. I had to replace them by ripping "2 X 4" s that were kiln dried. They tend to bow after the rip-cut due to the moisture difference between the exterior wood and the interior wood. they need to be stickered and stacked for a couple of years in a constant moisture enclosure but who has the time and space to do that.@@markfisher7962
Box heart is always a problem. Monoculture trees aren't allowed to get big enough before harvest, and modern forestry practice is never going to have tight growth rings. They're all GMO to start with.
I've been a carpenter for 47 years now, and I still salivate when I get to tear apart a 1950-60's project for a remodel. I know that inside the walls, I have super straight, nearly knot free old growth lumber waiting for me to "dispose" of. Pretty much 100% of these projects yield boards that are laser straight and completely reusable, although somewhat harder due to age. The stuff we buy these days is absolute garbage, and we have to use it immediately before it starts to twist and bend. Aside from nail guns and the proliferation power saws, building houses in the earlier years would have been much easier because your materials would all be straight and true.
I always thought it was so they could use small/junk wood to make boards...most I see in the stores today are not only very expensive, they are mostly warped, bowed, twisted, knot holes, and riddled with bark-edging..some have cracks, and bark-edging on the end, which makes the end not square and off-dimension...this is very, very common at the big box home improvement stores. And these boards are not being sold as "seconds" or "culls", either....
Here in Germany, probably all of EU, it´s similar, but kinda completely different. Construction lumber is rough sawn, no milling whatsoever. It usually starts at 60x60mm (or up to 100x160 for ´normal´ home store stuff), but the store sells this as a 56x56 or 58x58 (I´ve seen variations over the years). Everyone stll calls it a 6x6 (cm) though, it just must not be advertised as such.
In Sweden the regular construction softwood ’2x4’ equivalent is a true 45x95 mm (1.77x3.74”) milled one, with edges rounded. Have never seen rough sawn construction lumber, and all lumber is sold according to true dimension. So I guess construction lumber is not the same in all of EU!
In France at least, you also have different treatments for construction lumber, and you can have a surfacing on one or more faces. What you get in the hardware store is often not properly stored so it's warped.
@@RandomActsOfMadnessive worked with selling lumber for about 10 years, and ive seen 2x4" rough sawed in sweden, but its uncommon. And not used that much. Remember that we had to remove it from the racks cus they took up space for other more selling products. But everything else you said was correct. 45mmx45mm, 45x70, 45x95(our equivalentmto 2"x4"), 45x120, 45x145, 45x170, 45x195, 45x220 is the normal 2"x something in sweden. And these dimensions are milled and have rounded corners. And most of the wood is freshly chopped lumber. So they bend and curve, propeller pretty quick when you open a new package.
The thing I don't like about the current dimensions is 1.5+1.5=3 not 3.5. It can make some projects a little more complicated because of this. Is it a huge deal? No, but having the height half of the width would be more convenient. 1.75x3.5 makes more sense to me from a project standpoint. Just my opinion.
Very interesting history embedded in standard material dimensions we encounter everyday without realizing the backstory! Please keep the great content coming!
I never asked this question. Old homes were built with "rough sawn" 2 x 4s.... Often built green and balloon framed as well. The lumber coming out of the stores these recent decades has been kiln dried and very consistent......It was easy to imagine that the rough sawn cuts were getting dressed. Fantastic video! tHanks for posting.
I think that the boards from the 40-early 60s were the best. It was still older growth and kill-dried. Most of the stuff you buy at a big box store is "S-dried".
I agree...you can see the difference. I'm not against the faster growth wood. Seems like it can hold up. If faster growing trees work, I'm willing to try. When I take apart old walls the wood feels heavy and definitely from a different era. @@greentriumph1643
I don't think I've seen a "consistent" rack of lumber in a long time outside of the expensive fine lumber aisle. It's like 75% wonky boards, 22% usable without any major caveats, and 3% properly solid.
I've worked on VERY old houses before, and the 2 x 4s were... 2" by 4". And the framing was still rough. The sad part is that the "2 x 4" has shrunk even in my life time (OK, that's 62 years, but still...) However, I believe the biggest factor in the shrinkage is price. The value of the dollar has fallen so much (and hence the number needed to buy something increases), and the Powers That Be have done such a good job at putting peoples attention on the price... well, what are manufacturers of pretty much anything supposed to do?
Can use a smaller tree too. The rings in a board have changed a lot too so I figured that’s why the board keeps getting smaller and smaller they’re trying to grow a tree faster and faster
so a US 2x4 is what we call a 90x35 in Australia, which is the thinner version of the 90x45 (the 90x45 is used for house framing in the tropical north where I am). The 35 thickness doubled up gives 70 and there is 70x45 and 70x35 as well (and then again 120x35, 120x45, 140x35 and 140x45, etc..). But most common is 90x45 and 90x35. PS: and yes, the dimensions of that wood is +/- 1mm what it says on the label.
I’ve been wondering about this myself, having worked in construction, two by fours measure 1 1/2 x 3 1/2, but the barn that was built in the 60s or 70s at my home the two by fours measure 2” x 4” and the two by eights actually measure 8 inches. These are giant pieces of wood compared to what we normally work with.
When we remodeled a bathroom in our old house, we discovered true hand hewn lumber coated in actual pine tar pitch to keep it “waterproof”. We were almost sad to cover it up and if I could have afforded glass walls, I would have done it so I always saw the beauty of the original build.
This was quite informative. We live in a 100+ year old house on the east coast of Canada. Our house has never had any major renovations done. In the basement there are some areas that remain open so we can see the wood that was used to build it. Strong and rough hewn. Much sturdier than what is available today. One area has a huge beam that measures 12"X12". I've never seen anything like that at Home Depot !
And, let us not overlook the fact that when framing a house, you cannot just put two "2 X 4's" together for door and window headers and match up to the side 2 x 4"s, oh no, that would be too easy. Now you have to add in a piece of 1/2 plywood to fill the gap so the header will match up to the side frames. Would be so much easier if the boards were true 2" x 4". Seems to me this was the original intent back in the old days, use even number dimensions to make the actual building of structures much easier.
I've done repairs on older homes in the midwest where the lumberr was actually a full 2 inch by 4 inch, but it was rough surfaced, not smooth like current standards. Add to that the wood lath on both sides and the build up of plaster with scratch coat, brown coat and finish, walls were about 6 inches thick or more between rooms. There is no modern substitute for the old wood lathe. I knew a builder who ripped dimensional lumber into what I recall as 3/8 inch thick strips to approximate the original lath when building up after major repairs or additions that extended walls. I learned how to properly plaster from older builders in order to do these repairs and match the existing walls. I learned an appreciation for plaster. Drywall is too soft and easily damaged accidentally. Plaster is much harder to damage. I much prefer plaster. The home I grew up in had more modern dimensional lumber, being post war built. It still had plaster, but short cutted using gypsum panels (about 2 foot by 4 foot) and just the thinnest brown coat and finish coats on top of that. Much less work, much less material, but the same hard smooth finish. Exterior walls on the inside were thicker because they had expanded metal screening attached to the gypsum to give the brown coat more to attach to, like lathe it was on both sides of the substrate. Perhaps they even used a scratch coat. I never did exterior repairs to see that detail. This is Michigan and I expect the outside walls would have had the plaster lose its grip on the gypsum if it got too damp, so they gave it something that it attached to much better (the metal screens).
I mill my own lumber for projects. I've stopped milling actual dimension 2x4's because nails and screws are standardized 3 1/2", and you pay a steep premium for longer fastners (needed to join the fatter lumber.) Now that the price of lumber is down again, I just go to home depot for 2x4s and smaller, as they're a bit of a pain in the ass to mill. IMo, too tedious. I save the mill for posts and beams and fun stuff.
I've been cutting fence posts at 4" by 4". They look proper....like a fence post should be. Amazing the difference it makes. Like you, when I need some boards I just cut them at 1 1/2" thick....It is what I'm used to. tHanks for the post....and tHanks for the video
We also have 2x4 here in Germany, but it's meassured in cm. It has indeed 2cmx4cm as advertised and it's used to install roof tiles. Here also exist standards for walls, most new houses have either 36.5cm, 42.5cm or 49cm wall thickness for the bricks plus insulation.
Nicely done, a nicely presented video about this subject. Another thing that has changed drastically is the quality of the lumber. Those old 2x4's came from trees that where 100's of years old and very slow growing so the lumber was much heavier and probably stronger.
Most timer merchants near me (UK) just sell the wood by it's metric finished measurements... It's been many years since I've seen a "2x4" label on any wood. I'm sure some do but labeling the wood with only the metric finished measurements makes it clear to everyone what you're buying.
Any American worth their salt would go "what's a 50x100mm, I need a 2x4". Don't try and take away my imperial freedom units, we sank a bunch of tea for this!"
I'm in construction (UK) and timber is still milled and cut to imperial sizes. The metric sizes that are displayed in retail establishments are conversions. For example a sheet of ply will be sold as 2440 x 1220mm but it is cut to 8 feet by 4 feet. All planks are cut and to multiples of 4 feet and then awkwardly converted to metric to appease Europhile government. Same with steel, an 18" beam is described as a 456mm. Lead flashings are now specced by code 4, code 5 etc. What does this mean? Code 5 is 5lbs per square foot, you're just not allowed to call it 5lb lead anymore.
How convenient that the size of the lumber that "is perfect for every use" and "doesn't affect the strength" just happens to be the much smaller size of wood that there was already a TON of stock for on the market that would all need to be recalled and replaced had the regulations that say "2x4 means exactly 2 inches by 4 inches" passed. Lobbying makes this such a bizarre country to live in.
The difference in sizes of 2/4s makes it really difficult to manage repairs on old houses. Mine is over 150 years old. Studs are all 2 x 4 rough cut. When I put in a new window, or take out an old one and side the outside and drywall the inside, I need 1/2 lumber to fill in the gaps.
I’m not so concerned about the size of the 2x4! They started planning lumber for easy handling. What concerns me is the growth ring’s! Your image proves my point. Growth rings are far fewer today than the 70’s!
Yep. Old growth was the norm back then. We would also 'cull' clear vertical grain lumber from units we opened on site! But no more.,. That stuff (CAHVG Doug Fir) is $16 a lineal foot today here in the Northeast.
As a European (used to live in brick, stone and concrete houses) I see my prejudices about American building confirmed, no wonder about complete towns going to hell in a storm, with the exception of that one old brick house that stood the test of times unharmed.
When I used to do house renovations this was an extreme pain in the butt trying to reframe walls using nominal 2x Dimension Lumber and then having to slab on thinner stock to match the old stock.
I have the same issue here doing repairs on my family’s cottages built in the 1950’s! Have to use fillers or other adjustments to make it work. The majority of the walls and flooring were done using 1 inch thick tongue and groove pine. Can’t find anything equivalent to that anymore!
That is one reason I like to be in the country. There are a couple of local guys that you can bring a sample and they will mill pine to match. @@JohnHallgren
@@markbernier8434 city folk just prefer "saving the trees" over structural integrity. They dont seem to care much about the thought of the building falling appart on them as long as they are content with the thought of having used tiny planks that must somehow imply in their minds that less trees are being cut. I've seen this argument all over the comment section so i can tell you that living in the country and getting a pine milled to fit just right is a priviledge that most people dont even realise as such.
Why do you think we went from 24 on center. Then to on center 19 1/4 now it's 16 on. I rather have a two-by-four that measures 3 1/2 x1 1/2 16 on center. Plus it's a myth that all houses were built. I'm a builder that builds additions in New England and all the old how is a built like crap. Not a level floor or door jamb in any house. You got to remember back in the day they framed with hatchets a couple handles you know Jack studs headers. Not to mention the plum is running all the steam pipes cutting all the framing.😅
Everyone's like "old houses are built better", but that's making the assumption that some other sucker BEFORE you fixed all the issues like remediation of asbestos and lead paint. We got stuck doing the former in our place.
I follow building construction channels from various countries and always amazed by the size of 2x4 and 2x6 in the US. Some people justify that it's because of contraction by drying process but I know it's just an excuse.
I live in a house in Canada built in 1925. The exterior walls are constructed of lumber measuring 2 by 3 and the interior walls are constructed of 2 by 4. I have no idea why this is.
@@bbgun061 When I started renovating I found newspaper and sawdust in some places, but nothing in most. I jammed in as much insulation as I could. The attic is pretty well insulated, but you're right, there isn't much. Trying to thin down standard batts so they fit in the cavities was a PITA.
also price is mostly a thing of supply vs demand.. if wood is harder to come by (longer transports, grows slow, etc.) the qualitative inferior stuff can still cost more than the old stuff - just because of that.
Here in the UK, until maybe 15 or so years ago it used to be possible to buy rough-sawn wood at the timber yard that actually measured 2” x 4”. But this was lower-grade stuff usually (called carcassing timber) and significantly cheaper than a PAR 2” x 4” that had been prepared (planed all round) and was thus noticeably smaller. But usually of better quality. But now it’s only possible to buy them PAR, at the higher prices, and they measure 1¾” x 3¾” and have the corners rounded too. I would only ever buy them from a proper timber yard rather than a big DIY store, where the quality is invariably dreadful…
Great piece. I would love to see you tackle a comparison between floor and roof deck construction in the US(2x6,8,10,12) verses Asian Pacific countries…where the timber framing tradition never disappeared.
Working in remodeling years ago I was always fascinated by old lumber. There were historic house that wouldn’t have a single stud be the same size as the next throughout the entire house. Floor joist were often logs planed flat on one side with some bark still showing underneath. I could only imagine the amount of labor required to build some of those structures.
If you want a true 2x4, go to an amish lumber mill.. 2x4's all day at .22cents per board foot.. I just bought a bunch for a project.. A local builder told me that is the only lumber he uses, unless code calls for a finished look.. Lumber from the Amish is rough cut.. But it fit what I was doing perfectly
One thing that I didnt seem to hear or notice was mentioned was that code for the distance each stud has to be from each other has also changed to be closer together than it was. Allowing just as much strength by using more pieces in a smaller area apart from each than before. Which in turn, increases the integrity of the structure being built. As a byproduct of this, it doesnt require lumber to be thicker to be as resilient to failure. Building code has helped make the "2x4" we know and use today still as effective in usage case as the 1920's were. I'm a contractor by trade and work on historic and new homes for reference.
He touched on it briefly. It's pretty much a scam though since you have to buy more 2x4's (at the same or higher cost than before) to accomplish the same thing. I mean, maybe it doesn't matter to you since you can just pass the extra cost onto the homebuyer.
The interesting thing is that there is always a push to build with sustainable materials (eg tree farms) but what they never tell you is that the structural properties of sustainable materials of all kinds (eg anything recycled too) is significantly poor. Instead of building homes to last 100 years they are only being built to last 30.
Old growth forests are a sad loss, what's more is that many of these timbers have been lost forever due to fires, rot and disposal into landfill or the bottom of the sea.
I build houses in Midwest USA. The engineering of houses has greatly advanced in the last 30-40 years as well. I would much rather live in a house I have built than a house built in 1900. Some of the construction I see in those houses makes you wonder how it hasn't fallen over yet.
This idea that "everything old is better" is extremely flawed. Yes, old things that are still around are probably only still around because they are good quality. However, we don't see all the low quality things that didn't stand the test of time because they don't exist anymore.
@shamancredible8632 Just like the Roman statues and other artifacts. We only found them because they were made out of material that lasted a lot longer than the 1,000's of other statues they made.
Unfortunately there is a tendency amongst Americans to stick to old things, whether it's lumber name, units system, or outdated foreign policies. I hope we can change it.
It's even getting worse recently. I bought 80 2x4 studs in 2021 for a project that didnt happen. These were bundled and strapped in a dry barn for storage. Now wood shrinks a bit as it drys and keeping that in mind, I recently bought 30 more 2x4s from the same store (HD) to add to the existing boards to do a new project and found that the new boards are almost 1/8" smaller in both dimensions so are way under and because I didn't notice & mixed them when installing the wall, the sheet rock bowed across the bays when nailed up. Was this just a mill screwup or has shrinkflation struck lumber too?
In Australia green hardwood 4 x 2 was always slightly under size due to shrinkage, only a few millimeters. But I remember in the 70’s with metrification dressed pine 4 x 2 was always 3 an 7/8 x 1 an 7/8ths. However metrification saw another reduction to 90 x 45 mm. Not as much a loss as in USA.🇦🇺
I swear that 50 years ago in Ontario, Canada the standard was 3 58x1 5/8. I distinctly remember my high school wood shop teacher saying that size and the reason was that as stated here, shrinkage and planing but did start off being cut to a true 2x4. My last house was built in 1950, the exterior walls were true 2x4’s, the interior dividing walls were actually 2x3’s. Plaster walls over west they called beaver board back then and the interior walls plastered over drywall. Now days yes the size is 3 1/2x1 1/2 here.
Here is a hack for you if you have to replace real 2x4 lumber. Buy a modern 4x6 and cut it down on a big table saw. It will be 3.5 X 5.5. Take one 1 1/2 thick slice off to get a board that is 1 1/2 X 3 1/2..save that to use elsewhere. The piece you have left is 4 X 3 1/2 slice it again to narrow it to the 2 inch thickness. You will have a 1 1/2 X 4 piece extra save that for strengthening long floor joists or to french onto your new 2X4 to compensate for the lower strength of modern wood.
It's funny because the two-by-four 'standard' is often given as a justification how useful and intuitive the American units are compared to metric. Meanwhile here if I buy 50mm by 100mm that's what I get.
Moisture content is huge and still uncontrolled. It makes quality building complicated since shrinkage will open up joints. Even picking boards from the same unit will yield widely different moisture contents. It’s a real problem before you even get to the actual size game.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Notice how back in the day the corners of the boards were sharp. Now they are planed/chamfered. There are several reasons for this:
1. Chamfered edges help construction workers to avoid splinters and other minor injuries.
2. The rounded edges make it easier for the boards to slide and travel on the conveyor belts (during production) and are easier to stack.
3. The boards are (slightly) more fire resistant as the edges usually catch on fire first.
If you found the video entertaining and educational and you would like me to keep producing similar content, consider clicking the Subscribe button. That helps a lot!
I have seen a lot of old framing using actual 2x4. None of the stuff I have seen was planned down on sight. You can still see the rough cut on the surface from the saw mill.
My house was built in 1969. It's 2x4's measure 1-3/4" x 3-3/4". They still measure this dimension. It was like this for a long time before going to 1.5 x 3.5. It is the planed dimension after planing a rough cut 2x4.
My 1883 balloon frame house is made from oversized yellow pine stock measuring up to 2-1/8" wide. There is slight variation in width from one to the next.
It also helps when sistering them in after you realize you screwed up.
Also you can just them closer together.
Repeatedly the industry said, "without affecting the strength". I'd love to see a load capacity comparison between 100 year old 2" x 4" boards and the smaller modern stud boards with grain nowhere near as dense.
I'll look in the literature to see if there are any tests from back then available. It's an excellent point, and I am pretty sure you are right!
@@TheEngineeringHub a comparison of modern lumber to these standards would only indirectly measure load capacity but, might still be quite interesting: nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/nbstechnologic/nbstechnologicpapert319.pdf
It's easy enough to double up the studs or use larger dimensional lumber when more strength is needed. The reduced strength doesn't really matter.
ex@@bbgun061 Except it would cost twice as much to double it up. Which is a significant cost.
@@YouveBeenMiddled all lumber would cost more if it were larger.
We're encouraged to buy FSC certified, sustainable lumber. That's a good thing. But there's a flip side.
Until the early 1990's it was easy to buy slow grown, slow dried lumber, perfectly straight, heavy and incredibly strong. What's on the market today is fast grown, kiln dried, light as a feather and warped. It's not nearly as strong as the lumber we used to buy.
To compensate for the lower quality the size should increase, not decrease.
That's why I use 2x6.
@@LemonySnicket-EUC Where I'm at, 2x6s literally cost twice as much as a 2x4, yet somehow less than a 2x8. Also, treated 2x6s are cheaper than KD. Plenty of each in stock, so supply and demand doesn't seem to be a large factor. Figure that one out.
@@TroIIingThemSoftly same here in West Texas. They are Doug Fir however and superior wood. It's worth the upgrade for me. I know it's not mainstream. A bit more insulation as well. Not worth it to most.
" That's a good thing." - Opinion immediately discarded.
@@BasedF-15PilotL take
Years ago I looked into why the Big Mac was getting smaller and it had nothing to do with shipping. it had everything to do with profits
Shipping in a part of overhead for business operation which can directly affect profits as you will spend more or less depending on shipping costs. When dealing in commodities like lumber shipping is one of the biggest factors in price for said commodity. More so when you look at it in a grander scale as the market expands and potential customers are further away. That said competition can help keep quality high and prices low and frankly there is not enough in the modern economy to effectively control greed.
Canada and the US essentially have a 40 year unsolved lumber dispute. US industry insists on tariffs for Canadian lumber.
As for the Big Mac, there are massive wage differences for workers in US and Denmark, but the price of the Big Mac is very similar.
Lol
It had everything to do with customers being stupid. They'd rather buy a smaller cheaper burger because it's cheaper and then complain that it's smaller, instead of buying a normal sized normal priced burger. And it's the same story with lumber. There's always plenty of companies not following this stupidity trend and putting out fair products for fair prices, and they universally get pushed out of business because people won't buy their stuff, instead opting for the crappier cheaper alternatives. And then the same people complain that everyone only makes crappy cheap products.
I swear, 95% of the population doesn't deserve the voting rights. But if political voting restriction can be conceptually enforced, there's no stopping morons from voting with their wallets.
Is because the inflation not the profit.
Spent 25 years in a house in the San Diego area that was built in 1898. All the studs were true 2x4", quartersawn old-growth redwood - absolutely stunning.
Old growth redwood?
That really pains my heart.
@@I999-g2sI'm going to look at it from a brighter side and say at least it's been maintained for over a hundred years. I think it would be a bigger tragedy to let existing redwood products rot. At least when it is cared for it prevents the use of new materials.
Let's all celebrate the old growth redwoods that were cut down to build houses. Yay!
@@ddognine would you rather we burn existing redwood timbers or would you rather they stay in use for as long as possible?
Yeah father has a house in Pennsylvania from 1898 also. Rough cut all throughout that house. Cool to see under the floors, inside the walls ect.
My dad told me that 2x4s weren't 2x4 when I was a kid. Two words came out of my mouth: _"That's stupid."_ I stand by that assessment.
I'm old and it's very true. It's false advertising. Someone should sue.
As he pointed out, it's just a name now. Hopefully we can all get over it. Or we can practice saying 38x90. Take you pick.
I like 38x90 makes more sense
Then they aren’t 2x4s.
People need to stop calling lumber names that aren’t accurate.
But they are now?
Man im glad i watched this video, as a carpenter it has always frustrated me having to work around different lumber widths and thickness but seeing this video, i cant imagine the rage and frustration being a builder or carpenter back when standards were being changed
i can't imagine having to build houses and having to rework my blueprints every couple years
Those older cross sections show something else pretty important when evaluating lumber, which is how close the growth rings were back in the day compared to modern day lumber.
@@esyr There's this thing called treating wood, and maybe if you did, it wouldn't rot.
@@shamancredible8632 Have you ever been to the south? Lol. You can treat it with whatever you want. The sun, rain, and humidity is going to destroy it.
It's going down!
I'm yelling timber!
You better move!
You better Dance!
I used to live in a house from late 1890, in 1983 the house got hit by lightning and the top floor burned down, over 30 years later the old wood seemed to be in better shape than the "new" from the 80s. If the new lumber was from todays lumber it probably would be an even clearer difference in quality. Old pine vs new pine planks are like to different type of wood. @@esyr
@@smasher.338 Yes, the sealer will eventually get damaged and fail. You need to reapply it. No products last forever, many won't even meet what it says on the can, even more so if you live somewhere with an extreme environment. This is part of regular maintenance. Do you clean your house regularly or only once then never again? It's the same thing
I worked in a southern pine sawmill from 2006 to 2009 -- from what I remember, most green-sawn lumber started out much closer to the stated dimensions (eg. 1.75" x 3.75"). It is then kiln-dried to a moisture content of around 8 to 15%, which causes it to shrink to about 1.70"x3.65" or so. After that, it is either then sold directly as rough lumber (usually for export only) or it goes to the Planer Mill. There, the dried boards are loaded, X-ray'd (to check for metal objects that could destroy planer blades), and then planed to final nominal dimension. The board is then re-measured for moisture content with an inline moisture meter, and re-measured for final dimensions with multiple laser curtains. It then goes to a grader line where the graders put special marks on the boards using big fluorescent colored crayon-type things, and these marks are read by an optical reader which causes the boards to get trimmed to final length (based on the marks, bad ends might get trimmed off), and then finally sorted into the appropriate bin. After each bin gets full, it is unloaded onto the final conveyor, auto-stacked on a palette, wrapped, tagged, and then stored in a warehouse/shed for loading onto a truck or train car.
Also, everything was recycled. All of the big wood chips were sold to nearby companies for making paper pulp or composites. And sawdust was used in the plant's furnace/boiler as fuel for producing steam for the steam kilns.
All that to make a crooked board that stays the same or a straight board that bows in the sun😂
that aint wood. that is scrubs for quicker money.
Is that why all the wood at Home Depot is shit?
I worked in lumber and the kilns were steamed by burning a "hogfuel" mixture of bark, chips and sawdust. It was a science to get that blend right for emissions standards. I didnt think it was possible to burn only sawdust and still meet those standards since it would burn to fast and hot for a typical boiler. Were they made into pressed blocks first? Did that work from an environmental standpoint?
Lot of salty 🍆s in the comment section. OP, I liked your post.
What a gold standard for clear explanation and not wasting any time. Kudos.
A good example of volume reduction without significant deterioration in quality
Even though in Finland we use the metric system, we still have certain lumber sizes often expressed in inches, though they aren't exact. But a two-by-four is 50 x 100 mm, which 1.97 x 3.94 inches. As far as I can tell, that is the size at which you purchase it in the store. So despite of getting rid of the units, we mostly kept the measures. In the US, the units were kept but the measures were not.
Same in Germany: Wood beams i.e. for roof tiles are 48x24, which is roughly 2x1inch... (So they are changing more and more to 50x30)
Same in Norway. A 2x4 is 48x96mm here.
@@Ekuahx okay, I researched a bit more into this, and we have sawmill products of e.g. 50x100mm in Finland, but rough planed timber that is 48x97mm. I would assume it's the same in Norway and perhaps also in Germany? Though it's odd that there is still this 1mm difference on the longer edge.
A Swedish "2 tum 4" is 45 x 95 mm.
I think as far as you guys keeping the dimensions almost the same, I think it might just be a happy coincidence that 50 mm is about 2 inches.
I worked at a sawmill in the early '70s. At that time the finished product standards were changed to 1-1/2" X 3-1/2". Because mills were more accurate at the time, the rough cut standard was changed to 1-3/4" X 3-3/4" to reduce waste. this caused quite a stir at the mill because now all the saws had to be recalibrated for the standards of advancing the log on the carriage.
in the 70's everything got cheaper. because people had less money. and they used AL wire n them homes as well. the buildings are the best time frame to buy if you go looking.
As a concrete form setter in California, I never saw an even number on board dimensions. A 2x4 was always 1 5/8 x 3 5/8
Sorry. I'm not familiar enough with the making of lumber products, but how it old tech more accurate than today? Seems like the only industry that goes out it's way to fuck itself in new and not so exciting ways
@@calj01 then the mill was off if it was stamped demensional lumber
@@TylerSmith-jf3dg nope. I worked with lumber for 40 years and it was always the dimension I specified
My parents owned a house that was built sometime around the first world war - the framing was all jarrah in actual 2x4 size. When my Dad did some renovations he had to scour all the salvage yards in the region to find similar wood so the work he did would be just as sturdy as the original house.
The combination of dimensional decrease and density decrease (fast-grown) has only led us to use 2x6 for anything but hanging drywall and small sheds. Some great old books have plans that aren't buildable anymore.
6:17
Depends on what wood you’re using. With doug fir you would be fine but it is a bit more expensive. Western SPF is also still quite strong. Do you use SYP for the most part?
Use of 2x6 in exterior walls affords more insulation and greater R value.
@@thatguy1917 With the reduction in cladding thickness removing the advantage of 2x6 walls. I remodel homes and the older ones are always cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. Over all superior R value in older homes, hands down. Check it for yourself. Seal around windows and doors in an older home is all you have to do to skyrocket the R value. Adding insulation is not more effective than dead air space. Insulation works using the principle of dead air.
2x4 is used for exterior walls all the time. That's why if you get a prehung door at Home Depot it'll be 4-9/16" in jamb width
I attempted building a deck and planter beds a few years ago with limited experience. I drew up crude plans, ran measurements, factored the cost, went to home depot, and was entirely confused to find the 2x4s weren’t actually 2x4”. Thank you for explaining lol.
That is seriously whack lol. Reminds me of that space mission where metric vs imperial measurements didn't actually add up when put together after conversion factors
@user-ry2ss4yh1s just like the cake
Yeah, most places where you can buy wood boards are typically 1-1/2" by 3-1/2", or 1/2" thinner in both the height and width because they've been surface planed at the mill to get rid of rough edges before shipping.
@@bigsky1970 As a metric user ( 1-1/2" by 3-1/2", or 1/2" ) might as well be alien writing, I have no idea what any of these messurements are.
Im sorry but 38mm x 90mm is alot easier to understand. ( thats a 2x4 in metric ) best part is it can be converted to metres and centimetres easily.
Important to remember that the growers had access to old growth forests that had quality trees back when the 2x4 was first milled. The structural capacity of that old growth wood (particularly Southern Pine or SYP) was substantial. Once the greedy mills had raped the hills of all the useable trees, most of which were 100 years old or more, the hills were replanted with faster-growing varieties. Of course, none of the mills were willing to wait 100 years for a properly grown tree, so most replanted trees were cut at less than 40 years old. The consequence is that the poor soil, which was not allowed to "recharge" since it was replanted on bare soil (the natural consequence of clear cutting) and the trees that regrew had lower structural density. Thus, in the 1950s, during the post war building boom, engineers noted that SYP lumber was flexing more than their standards told them it should be. The growers/millers had to have the standard altered to match the weaker product they were producing. This altered the design of houses. Since there were no large beams anymore because trees were not being allowed to grow past 20 years in age, house design accommodated the inclusion of the weaker wood by creating the "balloon" frame house rather than the traditional post and beam method used prior to the 1950s. A balloon frame has thinner walls (weak 2x4s stacked closer together) and the new strengths standards were accepted and adopted. However, after mismanagement by the lumber companies, the trees continued to get weaker and weaker, so the standard was AGAIN lowered in the 1970s and house design had too change, again. Long spans disappeared. High ceilings went away, and the single story ranch house became the trade's only economical, structurally sound product. It does not end there. Continued demand for wood products outpaced the mis-managed tree farms' capacity to grow sturdy trees, and in the 1990s the lumber standard was lowered, again, and construction methods changed again. Now you can't even find a replacement wood joist to re-do the joists of a house built in the 1920s because the lumber of the same dimension, even custom cut, is much weaker than the original, so mid-span bracing is required.
It is true that today's houses really are just "mud and toothpicks" compared to the substantial, dimensional lumber frame houses that our parents grew up in.
So sad.
Wow. Thank you for the detailed summary.
As someone who will probably never own a house (thanks federal jew reserve), but still an engineer at heart. Where do you see those of us that want to live in a solid house going? Concrete? I worry about the cost of such a structure and the high degree of human error possible in mixing and curing.
But would it have changed the trends to remodel the remodel that was done 5 years ago ?
I think not , and would have been more wasteful of us to insist on the higher standards .
And of course would narrow the market of affordability .
The "greedy mills" are the ones that supplied the wood to build your house. The consumers (you) are at fault just as much as them.
@@someoneonyoutube181 gatekeeping much?
Not only is new wood not as strong, but old growth wood just lasts forever. Facia board me and my dad installed on our house 12 years ago is already starting to break down, while I've seen siding on civil war era houses still in decent condition. The paint is pretty much gone, but that 100 year old wood is still rock solid. That dense grain is something else.
Smells great when you cut that sap wood too. Just make sure that you bring double the amount of saw blades. I lived in a House in Utah made with local old Douglass Fir. Tougher than nails.
Sadly, as you said, it takes 100 years to grow that tree.
@@ShuberFuber He also told me in his handwritten letter (he does not trust the internet e-mail system) that he was able to gather seeds and rooted cuttings from that country and planted them in an another Southeast Asian country where he has a small mini-plantation of food forest and they all grew successfully and his family (he is an American who married a Vietnamese woman of mixed parentage) is already systematically producing more rooted cuttings from it. They even have to use a tungsten carbide cobalt stellite cutting tools because of the hardness of even of the young stems. He also told me he will never establish a plantation in America for even though he is an American he will never trust the U.S government anymore and FOREVER!
@@darthvader5300 Sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic.
lead paint protected for longer too....
I'm a carpenter in the UK. We generally refer to a number of timber sizes that you refer to as 2x4s as 4x2s. Firstly there is rough sawn timber, which is roughly 4" × 2". Then there is PAR (planed all round) or PSE (planed square edged) which is usually a better quality timber for finish work, this is approximately 1/4" under 4x2 in each dimension to allow for planing down from timber that started at 4" x 2". Then we have a treated construction lumber which I have heard referred to as 4x2 regularised or 4x2 eased edge, this is around 45mm by 95mm with rounded corners and a fairly smooth finish. Finally we have what you usually refer to as 2x4, which is usually untreated construction timber which we call 4x2 CLS (canadian lumber standard) and has a fairly smooth finish with rounded corners. 4x2 CLS is generally used for internal construction such as studwork and is 38mm x 90mm. Because of this variety I rarely hear people in the trade refer to 4x2 without a qualifier, such as CLS.
In America, most people that refer to 2x4's are not actually carpenters or in a trade where more specific qualifiers are used.
As an electrician in the UK who dabbles in a bit of joinery every now and again, our sizes/standards are very confusing if you're not a joiner.
Thank you for your insights. I was wondering what happens in Europe
I need a pressure treated 2x4x12 and I now sound like a fake carpenter thanks to that logic. How about this...I need a long greeny wood with a side that isn't like calcium deficient bones and is straight like flag pole. @@blairs6664
@@blairs6664 That's a load of BS. 2x4's are called exactly that by all trades people in North America INCLUDING carpenters..
For those wondering, 2x4 -> 1.5x3.5 is a 34% reduction in both volume and weight (for the same length of board).
For the Americans, that's 34/100ths 🤣
@@markweatherilllow blow man, us Americans aren’t that dumb. even first graders would know that’s exactly 1/3rd of an AR-15
@@markweatherill high blow man, us Americans are that dumb. even twentieth graders wouldn't know what you're talking about
But it also allows us to get as much out of every log. We don’t have the large diameter trees to harvest anymore, and the volume reduction allows us to get the most out of the wood so we don’t have to log more.
Shrinkflation strikes again.
I recall our first house we purchased in Richmond, Indiana in 1987. The house had been constructed in 1926 and it was a high quality wood framed house. They had covered the exterior with wood planks, steel mesh then stucco. The stucco was still very hard and in great shape when we moved in. I recall over the next few years rewiring and replumbing the house. I lost count of how many spade drill bits i had to use drilling thru the wood for the projects. I measured the 2 x 4's and they were huge compared to today's standards, they in fact were 2" x 4" and strong and hard as an ox!!! Even many of the boards were oak and it took forever to bore a hole thru the floor joists with the smoke from the new drill bits lol!! They sure built quality houses back then, built to last!!! Oh yeah those floor joists were 2" x 12" spaced every 16 inches, that floor did not give at all when you walked on it. Makes you miss the quality of those days.
The good old day's !
I do wonder if there is not a surviva bility bias here. My house was built in 1910 and is amazing in its structure. But those are the ones that survived because they where well built. Those who where cheaply made arent there anymore. In a 100 years they might wish for a 2023 built house, because by then only the very best of what we built will remain.
"Makes you miss the quality of those days."
It was human overpopulation who made that vanish, like the video said early on- local mills ran out of raw logs because all the locally available forests were already cut down, people wasted massive amounts of trees and lumber in the 19th century. The Chicago Worlds Fair- all the massive buildings were built out of lumber and "staff"- basically plaster and straw because the whole thing was temporary! The ground was muddy so they literally PAVED the ground with wood planks to walk on. Some months later or whenever it ended, everything was torn down, destroyed and you'd never know what was there- google the pictures, all the buildings were huge Victorian and Federal styled buildings with massive columns, pediments, ornaments, resembling the Whitehouse, and other such buildings
.
A massive commemorative arch some 5- 6 stories high was built over 5th Ave in NYC to celebrate one short event- google the Dewey Arch, it was up for less than a year and constructed of lumber and staff, and then destroyed. Since the lumber had lot of nails in it, cuts and was in the weather for a year, one can assume the lumber was likely all burned.
"Dewey Arch was a triumphal arch that stood from 1899 to 1900 at Madison Square in Manhattan, New York. It was erected for a parade in honor of Admiral George Dewey
With only two months remaining before the parade, the committee decided to build the arch and its colonnade out of staff, a plaster-based material used previously for temporary buildings at several World's Fairs. Modeled after the Arch of Titus in Rome, the Dewey Arch was decorated with the works of twenty-eight sculptors and topped by a large quadriga (modeled by Ward) depicting four horses drawing a ship. The arch was illuminated at night with electric light bulbs.
After the parade on September 30, 1899, the arch began to deteriorate. An attempt to raise money to rebuild it in stone (as had been done for the arch in Washington Square Park) failed, owing to the growing unpopularity of the Philippine War. The arch was demolished in 1900,and the larger sculptures sent to Charleston for an exhibit, after which they were either destroyed or lost."
@@HobbyOrganist"Human overpopulation"? What is this ecofascism doing here?
Oak 2x4s lol, those were the days.
Good video. As an engineer and former commodities broker, you hit all the important points.I sold more Western SPF spruce pine fir, which is almost 100% spruce now in Canada to the USA. My competition was southern yellow Pine SYP. SYP was stronger and more resistant to decay, but the end user preferred our lighter and easier to cut and nail WSPF. Our eastern SPF was stronger than WSPF but too heavy because it was air dried versus the Kiln dried lumber coming from British Columbia.
Our market size was 99 percent on cost. Freight and the exchange rate determined the market area, so I can see how the mills struggled to keep weight and size to a minimum. We were more of a trucking company than a commodity broker, so our advantage was optimising freight. We had agreements with US truckers that came to Canada and would give us a cut rate so as to not have to go home empty, But when the Canadian dollar jumped our market shrunk huge and I could not sell a stick 200 km past the USA border. I went from making good money chatting on the phone with my buddies once a week asking then how much they needed this week, to unemployed in a matter of a few months.
If you added a section about the tables, building code and structural design that may eliminate any ignorant comments about the structural integrity. As engineers we have tables which reference the different grades and species of lumber by their applicable strengths. The scrap lumber is often referred to as economy studs are not permitted by any building code I am aware of, and the building grade is referred to as number 2 and better. Lumber like cedar is no longer accepted by most codes as the lumber no longer has a predictable strength, but this is a function of the properties of new growth, not the Mills. Issues with the historic quality of the wood are more a function of historically inept deforestation policies.
That's not right man. I understand that increasing the price would cause a housing shortage but y'all need a livable wage too. National economics is quite complex. I have huge respect for people that keep working on the lumber industry no matter how little pay they get
My childhood home in upstate New York was built in 1911. When it was remodeled in the 1990s, it was found that wall studs were actually a genuine 2" x 4". And the studs in the outside walls ran the entire 2-story height, maybe 25' at the longest.
Really? Well I'm from Utica and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "genuine 2" by 4""
oh no it's an albany expression
@@chunkypotato I see
@@yourmum69_420 just because you live somewhere & haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
@@daddynanners3944 yourmum69_420 was referencing the skit "Steamed Hams"
In 1987, I remodeled a house on Long Island that had been built in the 1920s. All 2 x 4s in the house were actually 2" x 4", so I had a lot of problems replacing rotted studs with the new 2 x 4s which actually were 1-1/2 x 3-1/2, so they didn't match the dimensions of the existing studs along side them. The old studs also had sharp edges and were much harder, causing smoking when drilled or cut.
Termites can't eat it either.
In that case, you'd just contact a local mill and buy rough cut lumber which would start out at an actual 2" x 4" dimension. Not like having planed sides matters much for studs anyway.
There are three sizings for timber, roughsawn, dressed and gauged, all with different qualities of surface.
In New Zealand which is pretty consistent with other countries, r/s is still described in imperial, 4x2 or in metric, nominally 100x50, and gauged is still called 100x50 even though it is 94x47. Dressed is the finest commercial finish and dressing makes sticks even smaller, but dressed timbers are used for finishing not framing, and framing timber is not usually used for finishing.
I’m 64 and nothing has changed in sizing during my lifetime. Kiln dried timber is still the uniform 94x47. Metric sizing has been used since about 1970.
Houses built by the state, “state houses” in the 1950s were engineered differently and framing timbers were square edged and smaller but I would not necessarily call the timber dressed. The timber was the native rimu. Most framing during my lifetime has been treated radiata pine, pinus radiata, also known as Monterey pine as it is a native of Monterey California.
Monterey pine was used from as early as WWI but not commercially milled until much later. My Dad worked at mills as a youth in the 1950s, pressure treating pine with tanalith, aka tanalising.
Timber on colonial buildings, say before 1900 was sized a bit differently and even beyond WWI finishing timbers were a bit heavier. Some time around WWI some odd numbered sticks, eg 5x2 were dropped and just even numbers used for framing 4x2, 6x2, 8x2, etc, with 3x2 retained for partitions and light exterior work, and 4x3 for bearers.
Obviously the reasons you give for sizing are specific to America so are novel to me, and a totally unnecessary explanation for something that is otherwise self explanatory.
As for sizing and strength, my preference is to use roughsawn as for one I believe it is stronger than gauged, but also for the aesthetic where framing is involved. For work on my own house I prefer the smallest sticks possible with closer spacing rather than deep sticks and fewer. As code requires treatment for insects and that means toxic chemicals when using pine I opted instead for Douglas Fir bought wet and juicy and put them up wet. They have mellowed from pink and white to golden brown and remain completely unfinished after fifteen years.
The problem with using roughsawn timber is that it is rough, and not the best sticks.
in NZ you guys grow a lot of doug fir which is great wood. Far better than the pine the east coast of the US uses. Out west in the US it's mostly doug fir and ponderosa pine
How dare you use metric!
Actually, the NZ 4x2 is now 90x45mm. I think it changed in the early 1990s when kiln dried framing became popular.
My house was built in 1945, in Canada. Wall stud 2x4's were only 4ft long and 1.75"x3.75" in dimension. Every 'stud' is actually 3 boards; two in line, sistered to another to 'connect' them. Very strange, and a pain to work on because anything new built on top needs a 1/4" strip attached to the new "2x4". One nice thing? Those old studs smell glorious when cut or drilled!
Mind blown! 🤯
I never knew why a 2x4 was smaller. But I did at least know that they were not a true 2x4. This was a fascinating lesson down history.
Actually, the more modern dimension rules are not applicable to 'all' dimensional sizes. The 2x4 and 2x6 are 1.5" x 3.5" and 1.5" x 5.5", respectively as stated in the video. But once you get to a 2x8 and above you're looking at 1.5" x 7.25"; a 2x10 would be 9.25" thick, and a 2x12 would be 11.25" thick. Anyone in the industry knows this, already. But a novice might find it confusing, thus the mention.
As a novice, I didn't know this. Cheers!
Then it’s not a 2x4, 2x6 or 2x8. Call them what they are.
1.5x3.5 is the proper name, I would literally sue someone if I ordered a load of lumber and it was all measured incorrectly to the order.
It’s a mouthful to order lumber that way when you do it all the time. 2x4 gets the point across fine.
@@lilkittygirl Really, so you expect a grapefruit to have grapes in it? You might want to measure the waist on your pants, you will find out the number on the tag is not correct. In fact, if you look around you, you will learn your whole life is a lie.
@@lilkittygirlThen you would be laughed out of court.
Just like if you sued McDonald's because your Quarterpounder came with a patty less than a quarter pound.
When I remodeled my rental built in 1910, I pulled out a few old studs to expand old closets. Those were exactly 2”x3”. Maybe other sizes were common back then? In any case, those studs were rock hard and heavy from old growth trees with super dense rings. Despite the prevalence of termites in the area, those 112 year old studs were untouched.
As someone who works for a forest company, it’s more about getting as many boards out of a log as possible than it is about shipping. We don’t have the timber we used to have, and we can’t waste anything.
Well stop cutting it down for nothing
Timber should be replanted.
@@jabrockobiden9434Obviously it's not for nothing, that's what they're selling 2x4s from lmao
aka scam
@@viscountalpha it is replanted. Where I live we’re on an eighty year growing cycle, but the first cycle of planted timber won’t be ready for harvest for another 10-15 years. A lot of timber has also been lost to fires and pests, and over the years we learned that it’s not sustainable to harvest everywhere. After all of the harvesting constraints, the timber we have left to harvest is the stuff companies have avoided logging for decades, smaller trees.
The most common species in my area is spruce, the bole of which actually has a cone shape, so the top of a spruce tree will always be smaller.
The thing with these crappy, small, poorly grown trees is that the fibres are really dense, so in material strength it will be stronger than many faster growing trees.
The majority of 2x4's I have bought recently have actually measured closer to 1 3/8" x 3 3/8". It's not an uncommon phenomenon either. Candy bars have been getting smaller each couple of years or so as well!
The cheese we buy went from 5lbs down to now 2lbs. The price went up.
I've seen the same thing since Covid screwed supplies
This is called shrinkflation. Instead of increasing price and keep the size, shrink the size and keep the price (not always true), basically misleading customers.
@@samuraijackson241The alternative is having a bunch of stupid people whining about higher prices because they are too dense to understand what inflation is.
@@Katt1n Inflation is caused by Democrats stealing everyone's savings by printing trillions of dollars out of thin air and then giving it to their buddies.
I salvaged some interior studs from the Olivia in Joplin Missouri. The building was finished in 1906. The studs are 3 1/2" inches wide by 1 5/8" thick. Still perfect for walls. Just have to take into consideration the extra 1/8" thickness when laying out doors and such.
I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to work in a hardware store and argue with customers about this every single week. I would go insane
why argue about it a hardware store?
most people that came in knew what was up. then again, I worked in deliveries, not lumber. Just ended up spending most of my shifts there if I wasn't outside.
the general demographic around that store was also older (if someone wasn't older they typically still knew since the state and region is more rural/suburban), so that could have an effect.
@@richardwebb2348Because people are idiots and think retail workers have control over the manufacturer and wholesalers , tons of videos like that out there 😂
They usually list it as "44mm × 100mm (2x4)". Note they don't say inches, thus there is nothing to argue about.
I knew something about the history of the modern 2 by 4 being much smaller than 2 by 4 inches, but this is a great explanation. I also remember seeing the old raw lumber used in older buildings in the New England area, especially barns and other rough structures.
Examining my 120-year old home, in many situations, we use larger lumber sizes today to make up for those smaller dimensions (e.g. roof joists, some floor joists). "Real" 2x4s are much larger and were typically used in framing unaltered. It helped a lot that trees were much higher quality and more resistant to rot.
I’m caught by the ring size. In the end shot comparison .. the older lumber has very tight rings. Where the finished piece are quite thick and seem less dense.
My house was built in 1883 , you’d be amazed at the wood in this house. Not finish wood , but the studding , and T&G lapping .. no drywall here. (Except a couple rooms that were remodeled in the 80’s. And it is just laid over the original lap. ) ..
Yes, as an aside, I hate drywall..I call it "paper and chalk wall"...good for fire resistance, not much else..crappy weak, hollow walls, I like something solid.
It's going down!
I'm yelling timber!
You better move!
You better Dance!
@@drawincode1800 ok , thanks for the poem.
@@theofficialdiamondlou2418 your welcome m8.
Anything else I can help with?
@@drawincode1800 ahh an Aussie. I should’ve guessed. Yeah ,naw I’m good m8. But I might use that in a song. If it goes platinum I’ll send you royalties 😂.. 🤠🎸🎶🤙
Interesting. Over here in Estonia (and in most of Europe probably) the 2x4 equivalent is 50x100mm which is much closer to an actual 2x4 in dimensions than the contemporary 2x4 in the US. That being said, no houses are built using 50x100 lumber here. It's at least 50x150 (or 2x6) but more commonly 50x200 (2x8) or sometimes even 50x250 (2x10).
In Sweden we use 45x90 or 45x70 depending on what wall you build (bearing or not)
Isn't that very thick? Is it something to do with bricks, temperature, tree type?
My latest house use 45x170 for main outer wall studs, both for the load and to hold enough insulation
@@XPimKossibleX At least here in Sweden we have climate zones prescribing, for different regions, the load necessary to withstand because of snow thickness and insulation necessary for keeping downy energy consumption
I thought European houses were superior because they were all built out of stone, brick and concrete????
Having smaller studs closer together means that lining and cladding materials don't need to be as rigid, because they are supported at shorter spans along their length. Have a look at a plasterboard manufacturer's installation instructions and it becomes very clear that more frequent, smaller studs have a big advantage!
I work at a sawmill and planermill. The initial cut by the saws is indeed 2" x 4", (I've measured it myself), it then goes into the kilns for drying, which of course shrinks everything, then goes into the planermill, cutting it down to 1.5" x 3.5", just like he said in the video.
Your mill is likely one of the outliers today; in the name of recovery our mill(stud mill, 330k FBM/10hr shift target) targets 1.63x3.7 off of the saw lines for a 2x4.
3:55 you are completely correct. Im from Seattle, Wa moved to Elko Nv and was going to build with 2x4s. I was highly advised to use 2x6 min here. I am glad i took thier advice.
Some of this video needs to also be about how the lumber has changed in quality over the years. Older lumber was slow growth lumber and was inherently stronger than most of today's lumber grown for its growth rate and time to maturity.
Very true. Lumber with rounded edges , called wane where the bark grew , is more common as lumber manufacturers squeeze every board possible from logs. All of our lumber ( the mill I worked in was first owned by Federal , then IP finally became and still is West Fraser) Over 30 + years lumber came to be cut by machinery that uses lasers to measure cut logs and that info is sent to a computer that determines how best to cut for efficiency and finally the computer guides the hydraulics that set knives and saws to get the most from
the least. Nothing is wasted.
All mills like the size I worked have a system called
" conversion " that compares weight in tons of logs brought in to amount of lumber in thousand board feet are produced. The lower the conversion is the more efficient the mill is. Companies are always trying to lower " Conversion".
When I started in 83 our production was 155 TBF per shift. Due to maintenance as well as saw and knife change mills only run two shifts max a day. I retired a few years ago and production was over
.5 million BF per shift. Makes ya wonder with 65 + or- loads of logs per shift how any trees remain. Well production mainly increased due to more efficient cutting machinery but preventative maintaining equipment practices increased and the bad word
" down time " was reduced as well as more efficient repairs were implemented.
I worked many years in a sawmill and with the modern high tech sawing drying and planning equipment they cut their lumber to very tight tolerances. They rough cut the lumber about 1/8" over nominal size. The saws they use are thinner than a skill saw blade to further maximize the volume of lumber out of each log.
Living in a house built in 1901, then expanded in 1948 and again in 2000, I have seen all the various sizes mentioned in the video and wondered when all the changes happened. Very informative.
My house is same sort of thing a 200 year old part a 80 year old part and a 30 year old part.
The oldest part is built with old ships timbers, incredible wood.
I work in a modern lumber mill in Canada and we do not rough cut a 2x4 to those dimensions. It's more like 1.7"x3.7". We kiln dry it and then plane it down to 1.500"x3.500" if we are doing our job well. We have a very fancy grading system to keep us in check.
Not just the size has changed, so has the quality.
I am rehabbing a old house which has the old sizes
but more striking is the quality. Even the lathing is
clear and knot free. The ring density is like 3 times
what you get now.
yes, many "2x4's" at the box stores, are warped, twisted, bowed...and it's NOT the cull piles. Many are also so bark-edged that it creates strength problems, and problems using them, especially when they are badly bark-edged at the ends. I suspect this is the result of using "logs" that are too small to even get a good "1-1/2 x 3-1/2" out of...
Its as if there are fewer old growth trees to cut down today... :)
@@voightkampffchampYou can facetiously say that, have you considered _why_ that is? It is _not_ simply that we used up all the preexisting trees and are now stuck with new growth. The tree farms actively encourage trees to grow fast, and harvest them young. Why?
@@yellingintothewind I think every 10-15 years tree farms clear out trees to make space for the others to grow larger and that's probably why a lot of lumber is from young trees. Was there a particular recent increase in the amount of young growth lumber? I'm not from the US so idk.
@@yellingintothewind because old growth is older than most nation states?
Interesting to see the story laid out. I will also point out that in 1963 or there abouts, in Canada at least, 2x6 wound up being used where a "real" 2x4 would have been acceptable. What you do not address is that the actual lumber itself is vastly inferior to what it was in the 1960's. Pick up a 4x4 and better than even odds it is the exact centre of a log. Rarely can you find one that is cut from a decent size log.
At 6:10, one can see the vast difference in growth: the newer 2x4 barely needed 4 years while the old growth 2x4 took perhaps 50!
I was going to make that comment about the grain of the wood. I wonder about the support strength for vertical force, or lateral force. The manufactured home I am renovating uses 2 X 3 Studs notched for electrical and nailers. The roof trusses are true 2 X2 but have sagged due to aging and water damage. I had to replace them by ripping "2 X 4" s that were kiln dried. They tend to bow after the rip-cut due to the moisture difference between the exterior wood and the interior wood. they need to be stickered and stacked for a couple of years in a constant moisture enclosure but who has the time and space to do that.@@markfisher7962
Box heart is always a problem.
Monoculture trees aren't allowed to get big enough before harvest, and modern forestry practice is never going to have tight growth rings.
They're all GMO to start with.
I've been a carpenter for 47 years now, and I still salivate when I get to tear apart a 1950-60's project for a remodel. I know that inside the walls, I have super straight, nearly knot free old growth lumber waiting for me to "dispose" of. Pretty much 100% of these projects yield boards that are laser straight and completely reusable, although somewhat harder due to age. The stuff we buy these days is absolute garbage, and we have to use it immediately before it starts to twist and bend. Aside from nail guns and the proliferation power saws, building houses in the earlier years would have been much easier because your materials would all be straight and true.
Hear hear. @@smartysmarty1714
Over the years I have always wondered about this topic. Thank you for taking the time to illustrate why the changes have been made. : )
I always thought it was so they could use small/junk wood to make boards...most I see in the stores today are not only very expensive, they are mostly warped, bowed, twisted, knot holes, and riddled with bark-edging..some have cracks, and bark-edging on the end, which makes the end not square and off-dimension...this is very, very common at the big box home improvement stores. And these boards are not being sold as "seconds" or "culls", either....
Here in Germany, probably all of EU, it´s similar, but kinda completely different.
Construction lumber is rough sawn, no milling whatsoever.
It usually starts at 60x60mm (or up to 100x160 for ´normal´ home store stuff), but the store sells this as a 56x56 or 58x58 (I´ve seen variations over the years).
Everyone stll calls it a 6x6 (cm) though, it just must not be advertised as such.
In Sweden the regular construction softwood ’2x4’ equivalent is a true 45x95 mm (1.77x3.74”) milled one, with edges rounded. Have never seen rough sawn construction lumber, and all lumber is sold according to true dimension. So I guess construction lumber is not the same in all of EU!
What about "Konstruktionsvollholz" (KVH) ?
In France at least, you also have different treatments for construction lumber, and you can have a surfacing on one or more faces. What you get in the hardware store is often not properly stored so it's warped.
@@RandomActsOfMadnessive worked with selling lumber for about 10 years, and ive seen 2x4" rough sawed in sweden, but its uncommon. And not used that much. Remember that we had to remove it from the racks cus they took up space for other more selling products.
But everything else you said was correct. 45mmx45mm, 45x70, 45x95(our equivalentmto 2"x4"), 45x120, 45x145, 45x170, 45x195, 45x220 is the normal 2"x something in sweden. And these dimensions are milled and have rounded corners. And most of the wood is freshly chopped lumber. So they bend and curve, propeller pretty quick when you open a new package.
Actually, you can get it sanded or raw, for different prices of course. All dimensions are in mm, of course. Germany is part of Europe 😊.
The thing I don't like about the current dimensions is 1.5+1.5=3 not 3.5. It can make some projects a little more complicated because of this. Is it a huge deal? No, but having the height half of the width would be more convenient. 1.75x3.5 makes more sense to me from a project standpoint. Just my opinion.
Very interesting history embedded in standard material dimensions we encounter everyday without realizing the backstory! Please keep the great content coming!
I never asked this question. Old homes were built with "rough sawn" 2 x 4s.... Often built green and balloon framed as well. The lumber coming out of the stores these recent decades has been kiln dried and very consistent......It was easy to imagine that the rough sawn cuts were getting dressed.
Fantastic video! tHanks for posting.
I think that the boards from the 40-early 60s were the best. It was still older growth and kill-dried. Most of the stuff you buy at a big box store is "S-dried".
I agree...you can see the difference. I'm not against the faster growth wood. Seems like it can hold up. If faster growing trees work, I'm willing to try.
When I take apart old walls the wood feels heavy and definitely from a different era. @@greentriumph1643
Check the grade stamp I’d bet money it’ll say s-dry! As in surfaced dried!
its not the sawing thats different. its the saws.
I don't think I've seen a "consistent" rack of lumber in a long time outside of the expensive fine lumber aisle. It's like 75% wonky boards, 22% usable without any major caveats, and 3% properly solid.
In New Zealand it was 100x50mm, now 94x47, then 90x45 mostly for gauged studs.
I've worked on VERY old houses before, and the 2 x 4s were... 2" by 4". And the framing was still rough. The sad part is that the "2 x 4" has shrunk even in my life time (OK, that's 62 years, but still...)
However, I believe the biggest factor in the shrinkage is price. The value of the dollar has fallen so much (and hence the number needed to buy something increases), and the Powers That Be have done such a good job at putting peoples attention on the price... well, what are manufacturers of pretty much anything supposed to do?
My house has a mic of REAL lumber sizes and fake lumber sizes.
Depends on what decade each part of the house was made.
Can use a smaller tree too. The rings in a board have changed a lot too so I figured that’s why the board keeps getting smaller and smaller they’re trying to grow a tree faster and faster
It's going down!
I'm yelling timber!
You better move!
You better Dance!
Semitism is anti White
Shrinkflation is real!!!
so a US 2x4 is what we call a 90x35 in Australia, which is the thinner version of the 90x45 (the 90x45 is used for house framing in the tropical north where I am).
The 35 thickness doubled up gives 70 and there is 70x45 and 70x35 as well (and then again 120x35, 120x45, 140x35 and 140x45, etc..). But most common is 90x45 and 90x35.
PS: and yes, the dimensions of that wood is +/- 1mm what it says on the label.
For my U. S. compatriots, "90X45" ~= 3.6X1.8, so a "2X4" in about 1970.
In Brazil our 5x10cm have surprisingly 5x10cm
Surprised you don’t use A8 size (53x74mm), etc.
@@spencerjoplin2885 it would be a great size
One huge advantage to being on the metric system as opposed to using fractions.
I’ve been wondering about this myself, having worked in construction, two by fours measure 1 1/2 x 3 1/2, but the barn that was built in the 60s or 70s at my home the two by fours measure 2” x 4” and the two by eights actually measure 8 inches. These are giant pieces of wood compared to what we normally work with.
When we remodeled a bathroom in our old house, we discovered true hand hewn lumber coated in actual pine tar pitch to keep it “waterproof”. We were almost sad to cover it up and if I could have afforded glass walls, I would have done it so I always saw the beauty of the original build.
This was quite informative. We live in a 100+ year old house on the east coast of Canada. Our house has never had any major renovations done. In the basement there are some areas that remain open so we can see the wood that was used to build it. Strong and rough hewn. Much sturdier than what is available today. One area has a huge beam that measures 12"X12". I've never seen anything like that at Home Depot !
Beams now are made out of multiple slats and painted over or tarred to hide it.
And, let us not overlook the fact that when framing a house, you cannot just put two "2 X 4's" together for door and window headers and match up to the side 2 x 4"s, oh no, that would be too easy. Now you have to add in a piece of 1/2 plywood to fill the gap so the header will match up to the side frames. Would be so much easier if the boards were true 2" x 4". Seems to me this was the original intent back in the old days, use even number dimensions to make the actual building of structures much easier.
I've done repairs on older homes in the midwest where the lumberr was actually a full 2 inch by 4 inch, but it was rough surfaced, not smooth like current standards. Add to that the wood lath on both sides and the build up of plaster with scratch coat, brown coat and finish, walls were about 6 inches thick or more between rooms. There is no modern substitute for the old wood lathe. I knew a builder who ripped dimensional lumber into what I recall as 3/8 inch thick strips to approximate the original lath when building up after major repairs or additions that extended walls. I learned how to properly plaster from older builders in order to do these repairs and match the existing walls. I learned an appreciation for plaster. Drywall is too soft and easily damaged accidentally. Plaster is much harder to damage. I much prefer plaster.
The home I grew up in had more modern dimensional lumber, being post war built. It still had plaster, but short cutted using gypsum panels (about 2 foot by 4 foot) and just the thinnest brown coat and finish coats on top of that. Much less work, much less material, but the same hard smooth finish. Exterior walls on the inside were thicker because they had expanded metal screening attached to the gypsum to give the brown coat more to attach to, like lathe it was on both sides of the substrate. Perhaps they even used a scratch coat. I never did exterior repairs to see that detail. This is Michigan and I expect the outside walls would have had the plaster lose its grip on the gypsum if it got too damp, so they gave it something that it attached to much better (the metal screens).
I mill my own lumber for projects. I've stopped milling actual dimension 2x4's because nails and screws are standardized 3 1/2", and you pay a steep premium for longer fastners (needed to join the fatter lumber.)
Now that the price of lumber is down again, I just go to home depot for 2x4s and smaller, as they're a bit of a pain in the ass to mill. IMo, too tedious. I save the mill for posts and beams and fun stuff.
I've been cutting fence posts at 4" by 4". They look proper....like a fence post should be. Amazing the difference it makes. Like you, when I need some boards I just cut them at 1 1/2" thick....It is what I'm used to. tHanks for the post....and tHanks for the video
We also have 2x4 here in Germany, but it's meassured in cm. It has indeed 2cmx4cm as advertised and it's used to install roof tiles.
Here also exist standards for walls, most new houses have either 36.5cm, 42.5cm or 49cm wall thickness for the bricks plus insulation.
Absoluter Blödsinn. 😅😅
2x4cms? WHat are you making shish kebabs?
Nicely done, a nicely presented video about this subject. Another thing that has changed drastically is the quality of the lumber. Those old 2x4's came from trees that where 100's of years old and very slow growing so the lumber was much heavier and probably stronger.
Most timer merchants near me (UK) just sell the wood by it's metric finished measurements... It's been many years since I've seen a "2x4" label on any wood.
I'm sure some do but labeling the wood with only the metric finished measurements makes it clear to everyone what you're buying.
Any American worth their salt would go "what's a 50x100mm, I need a 2x4". Don't try and take away my imperial freedom units, we sank a bunch of tea for this!"
Before metric in Australia it would be called 4x2 not 2x4
I'm in construction (UK) and timber is still milled and cut to imperial sizes. The metric sizes that are displayed in retail establishments are conversions. For example a sheet of ply will be sold as 2440 x 1220mm but it is cut to 8 feet by 4 feet. All planks are cut and to multiples of 4 feet and then awkwardly converted to metric to appease Europhile government. Same with steel, an 18" beam is described as a 456mm. Lead flashings are now specced by code 4, code 5 etc. What does this mean? Code 5 is 5lbs per square foot, you're just not allowed to call it 5lb lead anymore.
How convenient that the size of the lumber that "is perfect for every use" and "doesn't affect the strength" just happens to be the much smaller size of wood that there was already a TON of stock for on the market that would all need to be recalled and replaced had the regulations that say "2x4 means exactly 2 inches by 4 inches" passed. Lobbying makes this such a bizarre country to live in.
My old house in Massachusetts built 1888, had all true dimensional rough cut lumber. 2x4 thru the 4x12's in basement. Interesting history on this.
Never thought I'd watch a video about 2x4s, but you did a great job!
Thank you sir 🙏
The difference in sizes of 2/4s makes it really difficult to manage repairs on old houses. Mine is over 150 years old. Studs are all 2 x 4 rough cut. When I put in a new window, or take out an old one and side the outside and drywall the inside, I need 1/2 lumber to fill in the gaps.
Have somebody saw cut you some at 2 by 4. Amish usually do this.
I'd love to see more history of building materials and tools
😊
That’s a good question. As the timber evolved and techniques so did the tools along with them. Eg. nail guns and power saws.
I’m not so concerned about the size of the 2x4! They started planning lumber for easy handling. What concerns me is the growth ring’s! Your image proves my point. Growth rings are far fewer today than the 70’s!
Yep.
Old growth was the norm back then.
We would also 'cull' clear vertical grain lumber from units we opened on site!
But no more.,. That stuff (CAHVG Doug Fir) is $16 a lineal foot today here in the Northeast.
Those center cuts suck.
As a European (used to live in brick, stone and concrete houses) I see my prejudices about American building confirmed, no wonder about complete towns going to hell in a storm, with the exception of that one old brick house that stood the test of times unharmed.
When I used to do house renovations this was an extreme pain in the butt trying to reframe walls using nominal 2x Dimension Lumber and then having to slab on thinner stock to match the old stock.
And trying to repair and replace floor joists that are actually logs with one side cut roughly flat with an adze.
I have the same issue here doing repairs on my family’s cottages built in the 1950’s! Have to use fillers or other adjustments to make it work.
The majority of the walls and flooring were done using 1 inch thick tongue and groove pine. Can’t find anything equivalent to that anymore!
That is one reason I like to be in the country. There are a couple of local guys that you can bring a sample and they will mill pine to match. @@JohnHallgren
@@markbernier8434 city folk just prefer "saving the trees" over structural integrity. They dont seem to care much about the thought of the building falling appart on them as long as they are content with the thought of having used tiny planks that must somehow imply in their minds that less trees are being cut. I've seen this argument all over the comment section so i can tell you that living in the country and getting a pine milled to fit just right is a priviledge that most people dont even realise as such.
Why do you think we went from 24 on center. Then to on center 19 1/4 now it's 16 on. I rather have a two-by-four that measures 3 1/2 x1 1/2 16 on center. Plus it's a myth that all houses were built. I'm a builder that builds additions in New England and all the old how is a built like crap. Not a level floor or door jamb in any house. You got to remember back in the day they framed with hatchets a couple handles you know Jack studs headers. Not to mention the plum is running all the steam pipes cutting all the framing.😅
Everyone's like "old houses are built better", but that's making the assumption that some other sucker BEFORE you fixed all the issues like remediation of asbestos and lead paint. We got stuck doing the former in our place.
in Europe we use 100*50mm rough cut or 95*45mm surfaced wood
I follow building construction channels from various countries and always amazed by the size of 2x4 and 2x6 in the US. Some people justify that it's because of contraction by drying process but I know it's just an excuse.
I live in a house in Canada built in 1925. The exterior walls are constructed of lumber measuring 2 by 3 and the interior walls are constructed of 2 by 4. I have no idea why this is.
That's really bad for your energy efficiency; you can't have much insulation.
@@bbgun061 When I started renovating I found newspaper and sawdust in some places, but nothing in most. I jammed in as much insulation as I could. The attic is pretty well insulated, but you're right, there isn't much. Trying to thin down standard batts so they fit in the cavities was a PITA.
I'm glad I got a local sawmill I can buy sawn lumber from, and that sawn 2x4s are still commonly available here. I used those to build a workshop.
Did the price adjust to the size as well?
Just because I don't need a 2x4, doesn't mean I want to pay for a 2x4 if I get less.
also price is mostly a thing of supply vs demand.. if wood is harder to come by (longer transports, grows slow, etc.) the qualitative inferior stuff can still cost more than the old stuff - just because of that.
Here in the UK, until maybe 15 or so years ago it used to be possible to buy rough-sawn wood at the timber yard that actually measured 2” x 4”.
But this was lower-grade stuff usually (called carcassing timber) and significantly cheaper than a PAR 2” x 4” that had been prepared (planed all round) and was thus noticeably smaller. But usually of better quality.
But now it’s only possible to buy them PAR, at the higher prices, and they measure 1¾” x 3¾” and have the corners rounded too.
I would only ever buy them from a proper timber yard rather than a big DIY store, where the quality is invariably dreadful…
Great piece. I would love to see you tackle a comparison between floor and roof deck construction in the US(2x6,8,10,12) verses Asian Pacific countries…where the timber framing tradition never disappeared.
Working in remodeling years ago I was always fascinated by old lumber. There were historic house that wouldn’t have a single stud be the same size as the next throughout the entire house. Floor joist were often logs planed flat on one side with some bark still showing underneath. I could only imagine the amount of labor required to build some of those structures.
My uncles house in rural australia, built early 1900s by a single man and his hands. Had an actual tree as a stud with branches still hanging off
And newspaper for insulation stuffed under the floor
If you want a true 2x4, go to an amish lumber mill.. 2x4's all day at .22cents per board foot.. I just bought a bunch for a project.. A local builder told me that is the only lumber he uses, unless code calls for a finished look.. Lumber from the Amish is rough cut.. But it fit what I was doing perfectly
One thing that I didnt seem to hear or notice was mentioned was that code for the distance each stud has to be from each other has also changed to be closer together than it was. Allowing just as much strength by using more pieces in a smaller area apart from each than before. Which in turn, increases the integrity of the structure being built. As a byproduct of this, it doesnt require lumber to be thicker to be as resilient to failure. Building code has helped make the "2x4" we know and use today still as effective in usage case as the 1920's were. I'm a contractor by trade and work on historic and new homes for reference.
He touched on it briefly. It's pretty much a scam though since you have to buy more 2x4's (at the same or higher cost than before) to accomplish the same thing. I mean, maybe it doesn't matter to you since you can just pass the extra cost onto the homebuyer.
Extremely well done.
appreciated the content
my 120 year old house is built out of true 2x4 and 2x8 redwood. it's nice to see how well it has held up :D
The interesting thing is that there is always a push to build with sustainable materials (eg tree farms) but what they never tell you is that the structural properties of sustainable materials of all kinds (eg anything recycled too) is significantly poor. Instead of building homes to last 100 years they are only being built to last 30.
Old growth forests are a sad loss, what's more is that many of these timbers have been lost forever due to fires, rot and disposal into landfill or the bottom of the sea.
2x4s are the original display of "shrinkflation" that has started affecting other products, now.
I build houses in Midwest USA. The engineering of houses has greatly advanced in the last 30-40 years as well. I would much rather live in a house I have built than a house built in 1900. Some of the construction I see in those houses makes you wonder how it hasn't fallen over yet.
This idea that "everything old is better" is extremely flawed. Yes, old things that are still around are probably only still around because they are good quality. However, we don't see all the low quality things that didn't stand the test of time because they don't exist anymore.
@shamancredible8632 Just like the Roman statues and other artifacts. We only found them because they were made out of material that lasted a lot longer than the 1,000's of other statues they made.
@@shamancredible8632 I believe the term for this phenomenon is survival bias.
The new ones look like matchstick houses. I wonder why more of them don't fall on windy days.
@@ThisTimeTheWorld *Engineering*
Unfortunately there is a tendency amongst Americans to stick to old things, whether it's lumber name, units system, or outdated foreign policies. I hope we can change it.
That's why it looks like how it looks like, after a hurricane, over in Murica....
It's even getting worse recently.
I bought 80 2x4 studs in 2021 for a project that didnt happen. These were bundled and strapped in a dry barn for storage. Now wood shrinks a bit as it drys and keeping that in mind,
I recently bought 30 more 2x4s from the same store (HD) to add to the existing boards to do a new project and found that the new boards are almost 1/8" smaller in both dimensions so are way under and because I didn't notice & mixed them when installing the wall, the sheet rock bowed across the bays when nailed up. Was this just a mill screwup or has shrinkflation struck lumber too?
I have that happen a lot, I always assumed it was the machinery was miscalibrated
@@MavetSomnus tee hee tee heee rubs hands while saving .04 cents per board foot sold new yacht is on the way
In Australia green hardwood 4 x 2 was always slightly under size due to shrinkage, only a few millimeters. But I remember in the 70’s with metrification dressed pine 4 x 2 was always 3 an 7/8 x 1 an 7/8ths. However metrification saw another reduction to 90 x 45 mm. Not as much a loss as in USA.🇦🇺
Because Americans not sure if it's 2 by 4 measured in burgers or hotdogs pet square football field
the 1\4 mile divided by the square root of the lifespan of a Cnn headline
"Corporate Greed"
In the UK we stayed far closer to the nominal 2x4: dimensioned 2x4s here are actually 44mmx97mm, which is 1.75" x 3.75".
I dont need a 7 minute video to answer the question. GREED!
I swear that 50 years ago in Ontario, Canada the standard was 3 58x1 5/8. I distinctly remember my high school wood shop teacher saying that size and the reason was that as stated here, shrinkage and planing but did start off being cut to a true 2x4. My last house was built in 1950, the exterior walls were true 2x4’s, the interior dividing walls were actually 2x3’s. Plaster walls over west they called beaver board back then and the interior walls plastered over drywall. Now days yes the size is 3 1/2x1 1/2 here.
Here is a hack for you if you have to replace real 2x4 lumber. Buy a modern 4x6 and cut it down on a big table saw. It will be 3.5 X 5.5. Take one 1 1/2 thick slice off to get a board that is 1 1/2 X 3 1/2..save that to use elsewhere. The piece you have left is 4 X 3 1/2 slice it again to narrow it to the 2 inch thickness. You will have a 1 1/2 X 4 piece extra save that for strengthening long floor joists or to french onto your new 2X4 to compensate for the lower strength of modern wood.
It's funny because the two-by-four 'standard' is often given as a justification how useful and intuitive the American units are compared to metric. Meanwhile here if I buy 50mm by 100mm that's what I get.
Moisture content is huge and still uncontrolled. It makes quality building complicated since shrinkage will open up joints. Even picking boards from the same unit will yield widely different moisture contents. It’s a real problem before you even get to the actual size game.