Im running into some common issues in NYS that seem to keep coming up, and I am looking for feedback from others. It is often noticed in my travels that a contractor will identify a target CFM50, and then work only to achieve that goal.
BPI's thoughts are,"Get them as tight as possible, fiqure out what amount of air needs to be made up, and provide make up air for that."
Are contractors afraid of the consequences of getting a home too tight? Mold, Poor Client Health, etc, etc.. Is this because they dont understand the simpleness of supplying make up air? Do they feel as though it is too costly? Is it because Government Programs usually stiff the contractor on that type of measure? Is it laziness? After all they achieved thier goals. Is it that we as Trainers don't emphasize the ideals enough?
I am really just looking for thoughts. I want to eventually address the problem locally.
Tags:
Permalink Reply by Paul Lasicki on April 20, 2012 at 4:04am I find it's usually too costly for the client and too labor intensive. Most people get an free audit because number one they can't afford an audit let alone a deep retrofit to achieve BAS or less. A lot of my clients make just enough not to qualified for Assisted HP or any other assistance. I work hard to achieve an air reduction of 50% of the difference between the actual blower door number and the BAS, at the same time keeping it affordable for the client.
Plainly put, I do what the client can comfortably afford while doing the best you can do in retrofitting their home.
Permalink Reply by Tim Marlett on April 20, 2012 at 5:25am Thank you for your input
Permalink Reply by Bruce Navin on April 20, 2012 at 4:37am Paul said it well. If you can get the home down to the range in the BAS, you have in the practical world reached an acceptable goal. Going beyond that number with a house as tight as a drum and with controlled ventilation is for the homeowners that are, shall we say, enthusiastic about the concept, or for the ones with serious health concerns.
Contractors have a very full schedule-whether they have jobs on the books or not-and it is impractical and potentially harmful to push too hard for upgrades for fear of giving a wrong impression.
Permalink Reply by Tim Marlett on April 20, 2012 at 5:25am Thank you for your input
Permalink Reply by Sean Lintow Sr on April 20, 2012 at 6:27am Are contractors afraid of the consequences of getting a home too tight? Mold, Poor Client Health, etc, etc.. --- YES & many are still under the assumption that houses need to breathe though it is nice to see that changing as they start learning more
Is this because they don't understand the simpleness of supplying make up air? --- Sometimes and to some extent that is because they don't understand fully what is needed, when & why so they make it more complicated than needed
Do they feel as though it is too costly? --- heh, almost all the contractors are worried about the bottom line & adding additional costs that they can't justify or they think that the other way is just as good is making it a tough sell in their minds
Is it because Government Programs usually stiff the contractor on that type of measure? --- in some cases the program calls for just getting it to X, while others are so focused on ROI that adding this negatively impacts it, Fortunately though many programs are starting to make this a prerequisite and I expect to see the WX/WAP programs adopt it as I know it in the works (now if it sees the light of day...)
Is it laziness? After all they achieved their goals. --- Maybe for some but I tend to go with the above issues
Is it that we as Trainers don't emphasize the ideals enough? --- From what I have seen & heard - many trainers are fixated on ROI, others quite simply lack the knowledge, and others are so fixated on their idea of best practices & materials that they don't cover these topics or do so properly
Permalink Reply by Tim Marlett on April 20, 2012 at 1:18pm Thank you for your input
Permalink Reply by Patrick Michaelyan on April 20, 2012 at 12:00pm
Permalink Reply by Tim Marlett on April 20, 2012 at 1:19pm Thank you for your input
Tim, I think it can be a lot of things.
This list could go on and on. A lot of these issues are very subtle. We always set a conservative target and hope to exceed it. Under-promise and over-deliver tends to keep people happy.
And happy people don't fill your uncompensated time with complaints.
Permalink Reply by Eric Timon on April 25, 2012 at 12:48pm This is something I have been battling for awhile now. For me it is hard to explain the building airflow standard to clients without them becoming concerned about too tight of a home. It is important to explain that the standard is not necessarily an efficiency guideline but an air quality issue, but that can deter home owners as well. I have also found homes that test-in at or below the point where BPI requires mechanical ventilation, despite my best efforts these clients rarely want to tighten their homes up more. Recently, I tested a home that had poorly installed fiberglass in the rim joist, 4 inches of loose fill cellulose in the attic, about 20 recessed lights, and some open wall cavities to the attic. We knew that the home could be drastically improved upon, yet it was right at the 70% standard where mechanical ventilation is required. I often question the standard itself and how it was developed, does anyone have a resource they could guide me toward?
Thanks,
Eric
Permalink Reply by Patrick Michaelyan on April 26, 2012 at 12:53pm
Permalink Reply by Eric Timon on April 27, 2012 at 5:43am Thanks Patrick, the home I was speaking of was built in 1993, I don't know anything about the builder but he certainly did something right that beyond what our 3 hour assessment could see. We have also recently tested all our our blower door equipment to ensure it is giving us true numbers still, so that shouldn't be the issue. When you say that you provide a report with info. about the BAS that is specific to their house, what exactly are you providing them if you don't mind me asking? Volume, occupants, rooms, home age etc..?
Eric
Home Energy Pros was founded by the developers of Home Energy Saver Pro (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and brought to you in partnership with Home Energy magazine.
Eric Kjelshus replied to Johnny Ritzo's discussion Selecting a Water Heater
Bachi Brunato replied to Bachi Brunato's discussion Boxing and Insulating Around Non-ICAT Cans
Bachi Brunato's discussion was featured
Johnny Ritzo's discussion was featured
Tom Delconte's blog post was featured
Christopher Morin's blog post was featured
Mike Rogers's blog post was featured
Mike Rogers posted a blog post
Orvil D Boyer replied to David Starrett's discussion I am looking for a good IR camera in the group Energy Auditing Equipment for Sale, Trade or to Purchase© 2013 Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.