The National Association of Home Builders research center uses tax money to claim an illusion of research and development. When "progress has been made", It assigns a "Partner" to demonstrate it without a champion of the cause. This is a failure path for new ideas. When asked for a progress report, "the partner did not submit one" with none held responsible, all new ideas fail. Those assigned demonstration funding are concepts already proven by private industry.
My most documented, yet undocumented example subject is Truss Framed Construction. It had a full media news blitz about 24 years ago. This started an over 5000 home demonstration claiming 14 benefits for energy and cost savings. Further non demonstrated developments have increased the list of benefits to 67. Today, I can not get a copy of any report detailing nor summarizing those efforts nor their cost savings. It was the first big stride toward the industrialization of home building.
The route that present manufactured homes are following is lumber wasting and needs to be replaced by something sensible.
The route that stick built homes are taking is labor and lumber wasting.
The route that the U.S. Forest Service took with Truss Framed Construction 24 years ago was an incomplete start without a champion of the cause knowing the other potentials.
The full potential of what I am talking about can mean up to 70% savings for every home regardless of size or style. Then there is on going energy savings and downstream remodeling savings. There is 20X the roof hold down strength for tornado resistance. Fire resistance is increased without increasing the thickness of the gypsum board.
It is the first concept to claim easy de-construct ability into reusable modules.
Dean
Willard, Utah
0 comments