Crazy lumber law suit one more time

I think a lot of you guys have missed the obvious point in the article about the suit over lumber not being the size it is stated as.
I can understand some city person not being educated in lumber size and feeling he was cheated.
Heck anyone that feels he knows everything about everything probably needs mental help anyway.

The thing that caught my eye was that 3 different people went to different lumber stores and felt they were cheated.
So all 3 of them (that have never met before in their life) went to the same law firm on the same day and filed the suit.

If that does not smell like week old fish nothing does.

This has nothing to do with so poor uneducated person not knowing how lumber is sold and feels he was cheated.
In my mind this is simply a well educated lawyer that knows how lumber is sold knowing full well what he was doing from the get go that gathered 3 people to file a suit because he saw some easy money to be made.

I think the lawyer needs to be disbarred for his actions.

From what I read they managed to buy the only size lumber that didn't say on the tag " nominal size". Now that's odd. I agree that whole mess is a lawyer set up. Although as many 4x4's as I use I should get in on it and be rich. Lol. Naw I like to sleep good...........

Reminds me of a news piece I saw on 60 minutes I believe. Lawyer files American with Disabilities lawsuits. So far in the tens of millions. Looks at google earth for no handicap lifts at hotel pools and improper signage and markings for handicapped parking. Has disabled people lined up to go to these establishments, paid them like $1000 each. Bam instant lawsuit easily won, unethical perhaps, were they in violation yes,

That was my thought also.

Do we cheat em and how

Dewey, Cheatham,& Howe.

Thanks

Forgive them they are only stupid. Why don't they grow, cut there own trees and make there own lumber. They have no clue what really goes in to the work on the stuff they buy just like every body who complains about there food prices. Forgive them if they had to do the work they would not complain but be grateful.

It used to be that 1-5/8 was standard for 2" now it is 1-1/2 , how far can they go shrinking the size of lumber.

John, thanks for bringing up that point. I've been sick for a few days and didn't read the whole article. Actually, I barely skimmed over 1/3 of it!

There will be new signage now,and of course several warning stickers to accommodate the "stupid" people,,sort of like "Do not insert your arm in a stalk roll while corn head is running".."Do not attempt to chance baler knives while baler is running"... "Stop and Park vehicle before changing flat tire"..where will it all end???

Funny, no one has complained about pipe and conduit being bigger than it is labeled!

Hope the suppliers don't get a class action suit demanding I send them more money!

I like that

If a stick of lumber is cut full 2" X 4" there is shrinkage during the drying process. Then the planer takes off a little more when it is planned. Result is 1 1/2" X 3 1/2". Someone has to pay for that lost size. The mills have to buy it and they just pass it on. I have only heard of Homedepot and Menards being named in the suit, but ALL stores sell the same size lumber. Crazy people in this world.

Inch lumber used to be 7/8 when planed - not sure how it got down to 3/4 inch. I run into this problem all the time working on old rail road cabooses that were built with 7/8 lumber.

I understand what you're saying,but if I go to the local sawmill and buy 2X4 boards I get 2" X 4" boards.So why should Lowes or HD be able to advertise that they also sell
2" X 4" boards when they really aren't selling that? Just because "its always been done that way" is the worst reason there is to keep doing something.

I think they just want a settlement big enough to hire their project done so they don't have to admit to their wives that they don't have a clue how to build her project from Pinterest.

I believe the grading standards call for 2x4 to be 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 for kiln dried lumber

I got some used boards one time and they were larger than the stuff you buy today so just like candy bars they have been shrinking over the years in order to mess with you.

OK, here's the scoop.....at least as best I can tell you. Why smaller than the listed size? Primarily is shrinkage during the drying process and second is due to surfacing. Wood shrinks across its width, but almost none along its length. However, wood is also a varying product. Some trees are fast-growing, some are not. Some are one species while others are another. There is also sapwood (the live part of the tree before it is cut) and heartwood) the dead inner wood that gives trees their backbone). Add in that there are also straight trees, bent trees, old-growth (not much around anymore), tree-farmed, and wild cut. Some trees have lots of limbs, which means lots of knots, and also changes the rate and amount of shrinkage. Add to this that wood used to be cut first by handsaw, then using large circular saws, and now mostly using bandsaws - kinda hard to keep an accurate size when multiple methods of cutting are involved.

Now, moving into more modern times, there have been added standards as to tree grading, as well as lumber dimension. When these standards were first brought into use, there were still quite a number of large circular mills still in use, and their cuts were oftentimes erratic, which meant lots of waste. So in order to prevent a backlash and shut down many sawmills overnight, the standards allowed for up to 1/4" to be taken from each side of the board. This 1/4" per side allowed for all variables even though the two most noticeable causes were shrinkage and surfacing.

So now, there are still new circular sawmills that are made and sold, and work quite well. However, the majority of the industry has switched over to bandmills, which can cut an exceptionally thinner kerf, and therefore can get more board feet per log.

As for the standards, I doubt they will ever be changed to anything else, whether thicker or thinner. This has been the industry standard for a very long time, and this one lawsuit is by no means going to be able to overturn those standards.

By the way, I had the opportunity to visit a GP (Georgia Pacific) mill in East Texas many years back. They were still using quite old surfacing machinery, but it was amazing how fast those boards could be run through! 8' boards were in and out in about 1/2 a second, being surfaced-4-sides. It was a truly spectacular and eye-opening visit.

I don't think anybody is asking them to change the standards. Just want them to call a spade a spade.

How come the shrinkage and planing is more today then it was "yesterday"?

(quoted from post at 13:02:38 06/24/17) How come the shrinkage and planing is more today then it was "yesterday"?

Click to expand...

For that, you'd have to ask the folks that initiated the standards to begin with. As mentioned in the other thread, when I first got into construction, the primary measurements were 1.75" x 3.75" for 2x4. I suppose to stop the confusion and bickering, they finally took all things into account and made the standard as 1.5" x 3.5" for 2x4's, knowing that some sawmills would be able to cut smaller than 2x4 rough due to the thin kerf of band mills. I haven't looked at any of this in decades, but last I saw, there was nothing stating that the boards had to be exactly 1.5" x 3.5", and I'm betting there still isn't. Meaning, if you get a board that is 1.75" x 3.75", that it would still be considered OK. Again, I don't know. Has been over 20 years since I learned this stuff.

Just as building code is "minimum acceptable standard", dimensioned lumber sizes are also (again, to the best of my outdated knowledge) "minimum acceptable standard". In other words, you can have lumber measuring somewhat greater than 1.5" or 3.5" (for 2x4), but not less than. Anything less would be too weak for properly getting an acceptable strength rating. Full 2" x 4" would be considered rough cut, and would almost certainly have no way of getting graded for or as construction-grade (referring to the Amish here).

That's it.How many farmers would like to go down to the feed store and get a '50 lb' bag of feed that really only had 46 lbs in it or go to the gas station to get a 'gallon' of fuel
and only get 9/10 of a gallon?

I blame ohsa for the abundance of stupid people!

Exactly: This case smells. How or why lumber is sold by nominal size is irrelevant. This case uses purported ignorance of common knowledge as moral high-ground to support a charge of fraud on two retailers.

And yet at the same time 4'x8' sheets of plywood are parsed to 32nd of a inch. e.g. 15/32".

I have some actual measure 2x6's from an early 20th century farm house I demolished. Don't know where the 3 ⅝ 2x4 came to being but
that and the non 2" width was a PIA for me in trying to build my house due to odd ball dimensions......fast forward: Along comes 1.5 and
3.5 and measurements are easy. What's hard is finding a stud in your house for picture hanging or butt jointing sheetrock, or flooring and
such.

Faster forward, no longer ?" plywood....you are a home remodeling guy.....something originally built with such needs modification and all
you can buy is the narrower board........thanks lumber producers!

I'm not really sure that the shrinkage is the reason for a 1.5 x 3.5 2x4. After all you can buy 1.5 x 3.5 metal 2x4's, 3.5/8, 4" etc.
I think it has to do more with what the minimum dimension will be required to do the job.

Rollie -- Exactly. As I mentioned, the nominal sizes of dimensioned lumber is due to lumber grading standards as well as building codes, and reflect the minimum allowable size for these boards. Lumber suppliers also milling boards the smallest they can get away with not only means maximum board feet per log, but also maximum board feet per load. If you compare an 8' wide x 48' long load of 2x4's, .....well, let's do that:
1.5" x 3.5" x 8' = 504 cu"
1.75" x 3.75" x 8' = 630 cu"
2" x 4" x 8' = 768 cu"

For an 8' wide x 12' high x 48' long load of lumber, you can get just under 15,800 individual boards at 1.5" x 3'5"

For 1.75" x 3.75", you can get 12, 639 individual boards.

And for 2" x 4", you can get 10, 368 individual boards.

Therefore, by milling lumber to minimum acceptable size, you gain a huge amount of product per load. Retailers can also store more of this product, which saves on their floor space. And as the minimum size is universally acceptable, then it only makes good "business" sense to mill to minimum acceptable standards. Then when the mills can also get more individual boards per log, especially when using band mills, well.....you can begin to see how the mills started seeing much more profits.

So nowdays, the minimum acceptable is what you will find. Most people don't know the how's or why's of lumber and never bother to find out. But I'm with ya'll - this lawsuit stinks worse than rotting eggs in turkey manure that's baking in the hot sun!!

Normally, I'd be one to say they should screw off and find an honest job (the complainant, not the lawyers. The lawyers really should get an honest job). For how many years, a 2x4 was 2" by 4". Then, due to planing, it was reduced to 1.75 x 3.75". Now it's reduced to 1.5" x 3.5". I for one don't believe that they plane a 2" x 4" board one quarter inch on each side (1/2" total). That's a lot of planing. More likely, they cut the wood 1.75" x 3.75", and plane an 1/8" on each side. If that's the case, this is a legitimate lawsuit. If it started out a 2x4, and you were getting less due to planing, that's fair enough. Someone's gotta pay for that extra lost wood. If they cut them smaller to begin with, that's more like fraud, and for all the extra money that has been made by false advertising, they should pay some of that back.

It appears that people need to educate themselves to the difference between "nominal-2x4" and "dimensional-11/2x31/2" classification of lumber. Then we get to the point that HD or any other retailer has no direct control over the finish size of lumber, and lastly this as goes thru the Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Standards which probably gets the Gov. involved.

I have a cabin from 1922-23. It was originally built up in Ohio somewhere, or another middle state with a lot of vowels. It was relocated to NM, and added on significantly with more modern framing boards(1.75x3.5). The old 2x4 framing timbers are unbelievably strong. They are some kind of Hickory, or Oak, or some other rock-hard specimen. Compared to the matchstick new pine '2x4's I wouldn't hesitate to sit under one of them holding up a Chebby.

While I don't have an opinion on the lawsuit, I find it, well - disingenuous for any retailer to advertise and sell a '2x4' with the caveat of 'nominal' size. Each mill seems to outdo each other on cutting the smallest board they can get away with, and still label it 2x4 nominal size. As for the shrinkage argument, that is complete bovine scatology. I don't care what kind of wood it is, if it was cut as 2 inch x 4 inch soaking wet, and then kiln dried it would no way in helf shrink 1/2" unless one set it on fire, and let it burn down to that size. Shrinkage may be, at the most 1/8".

Steams me as well. I just want the retailers to advertise what the size of the board is so I KNOW with out having to measure every damn board.

Hardwoods are not covered under the soft wood specifications, so you are talking apples and oranges, plus wood that was probably cut under no US standards. There are no major commercial mills that I know of that wholesales soft wood lumber below ALS standards. Now, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the lumber companies but these sizes have been around probably 50 years or better.

I didn't say the hardwoods were covered under the standards, so not sure why you should advise they aren't. Never said they were. I said they are unbelievably strong. If you care to debate that, I guess we can have your opinion on the strength of an actual 2"x4" piece of Hickory or oak.

As for the softwoods, if you are saying that they shrink 1/2 inch on the long side, care to make a wager? I will cut ANY softwood sopping wet at exact 4" on an 8' length and then kiln dry it. I guarantee it will not shrink down to 3.5". I don't care how long the standards have been around. If I go to my retailer, and I see a sign over boards that says: "2x4" I KNOW it's not 2 inches by 4 inches dimension. It is some significant fraction smaller because the mill decided to short me(literally) so they could increase profit. All I'm asking for is to call a spade a spade, and not a hoe.

It's not a matter of the "mills" shorting you. Back when these standards were first put into place (and before they were revised to today's standard), many sawmills which used circular blades left lumber so rough and in such poor condition that it was sometimes all but impossible to use for home construction, UNLESS covering with lath and plaster. Yet when paneling and drywall started gaining such popularity, those very rough boards simply were not suitable. That's when the first version of standards were created - so that homeowners and builders could buy lumber that they could reliably build with.

Again, at first, much of the lumber ended up being minus-1/4" per side, but that was varying quite much with some boards finishing at minus-1/8" per dimension and up to minus-3/8" per dimension. This made for a wavy wall, so was still not acceptable.

Now we have today's standard, which is minus-1/2" per side, but is now pretty much universal. In other words, straight walls, smooth boards, etc. The main problem we're running across in today's market is the quality of log that is being used for milling into lumber. Some boards will have maybe one knot in an entire 2x4x8'. Other 2x4's will have so many knots that unless you're using a pneumatic nailer, you're likely to hit knots and bend nails, or have screws that crack the knot/wood and weaken the board. So I would imagine there will be future revisions made to the construction lumber standards.

The ONLY way that any mills are out to get you is from the ones that take efficiency to the absolute extreme! They know from experience just how big to cut a board to allow for shrinkage and still have enough to mill to dimension - often with a few still-rough spots on the board. They know just how close to mill to the bark, even though some boards get through that I would definitely consider reject! And modern band mills with good, sharp blades can cut surfaces so smoothly that they almost don't need any additional surfacing at all. However, wood shrinks at different rates even within every tree, so in order to make the whole lot the same dimensionally, they all must still be surfaced. It's just businesses maximizing their profits by maximizing efficiency, yet still with a few companies actually pushing the limits. Lumber retailers that I deal with (NOT nationwide chains) are getting fed up with the amount of lumber they're having to eat because nobody wants to buy it. Which is why so many (if not all) now offer "garage kits" and "pre-built sheds". Home builders cut lots of corners anyway, but most will try to avoid using the really crap lumber "in" the construction and will instead relegate those boards to sacrificial uses. ...At least the builders I have experience with - which has also been a very long time, so take that with a grain of salt. :wink:

kcm.MN, thank you. I never said that there would be X number of shrinkage on lumber. What I did say Docmirror, is that for the last 50+ years anytime I wanted to build something, I could go to the lumber store (HD, Lowes, sawmill, whomever) and know that all the lumber would be standard size. I mean, go to the lumber producers and the government if you want this changed, but let's keep this where we know what we are getting when we go to the store. By the way, I remember going to the sawmill in the late '50s and '60s and getting full dimension lumber that had not gone through the planer. Boy, I wish I could still do that!

(quoted from post at 18:32:07 06/25/17) kcm.MN, thank you. I never said that there would be X number of shrinkage on lumber. What I did say Docmirror, is that for the last 50+ years anytime I wanted to build something, I could go to the lumber store (HD, Lowes, sawmill, whomever) and know that all the lumber would be standard size. I mean, go to the lumber producers and the government if you want this changed, but let's keep this where we know what we are getting when we go to the store. [b:693c758b57]By the way, I remember going to the sawmill in the late '50s and '60s and getting full dimension lumber that had not gone through the planer. Boy, I wish I could still do that![/b:693c758b57]

Click to expand...

ME TOO!!

By the way, I remember going to the sawmill in the late '50s and '60s and getting full dimension lumber that had not gone through the planer. Boy, I wish I could still do that!

[color=red:b6ecf98ec9]ME TOO!![/color:b6ecf98ec9]
Ain't that right!
JWO

tim, i was at big r a while back, and was snoopin in the camping and fishing section. they had a toilet seat that slid in to the reciever hitch on a vehicle fer nature callin outdoors.. wait for it............. there was a warning on the front of th e package...................NOT FOR USE WHEN VEHICLE IS IN MOTION........ i about split a gut laughing

(quoted from post at 22:22:59 06/25/17) tim, i was at big r a while back, and was snoopin in the camping and fishing section. they had a toilet seat that slid in to the reciever hitch on a vehicle fer nature callin outdoors.. wait for it............. there was a warning on the front of th e package...................NOT FOR USE WHEN VEHICLE IS IN MOTION........ i about split a gut laughing

Click to expand...

ell, ya can't just spread crap all over the following vehicle's windshield! :twisted:

...Ain't that classified as a manure spreader??

If not, I bet some of us here "[i:44615460cd]could[/i:44615460cd]" be! *lol*

CONSERVATION! I will bet you that there is a government rule on the books that sets the nominal dimensions and the reason for having nominal dimensions is because the more boards I can get from one tree the less trees I have to cut down.

There is another lawsuit we a man is suing candy companies because the boxes of candy they sell (like the ones at the movies) are larger (much larger in some cases) that the amount of product in them. Even though they are sold by weight with the weight listed on the exterior of the box, he feels the boxes should be completely full or he is getting cheated.

Based on the way the story was written I do believe there is something fishy about this suit, but it seems to me there are just people out there trying to be lazy and looking for a way to get rich quick.

I'm suing the seed companies since my corn is much higher than knee high and it's not even the fourth of July yet!