I dont know why they have to lie about it. At $5/8ft board you’d think I paid for the full 1.5. Edit: I mixed up nominal with actual.

  • ferret@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    Lumber is weird because it has been industry standard to lie about dimensions since before the US existed so it’s just kinda a thing they get to do

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      No its not Maybe in the US? At least here, it is and has to be, very precise especially when it comes to industry quality. It is precise down to the mm!

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        How does that work when wood varies due to moisture content? If they give precise mm measurements, only 20% of boards will meet those criteria.

        All they are giving is the planned dimensions instead of nominal in mm form, it’s still not precise, it can’t be.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Maybe they mill, store, and sell under the same moisture conditions?

          Also, how big is the difference in size and moisture for the same piece of wood? I would expect that moisture is usually not higher than 90% and not lower than 10% or something like that, but don’t know how it really is

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Once it leaves the mill they go to various stores and regions with different conditions. Some places store them inside, others outside.

            Once I buy it at the store and take it the site, it’s now different from the store. You should acclimate all lumber for 48 hours before using it as well, this is so the wood doesn’t swell or shrink more after installing it.

            A 2x10 can be anywhere from 9-1/2 to almost 8-1/2 depending on final site conditions.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Bullshit. Wood expands and contracts so ther is no way you can be precious down to the mm.

        • Thorry84@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s why the standards specify the moisture content of the wood as well as the dimensions. This is even the case for US standards.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’ve not really encountered this wood expanding and contracting thing. Are you sure?

            • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              True, but the amount they shrink and grow across the grain tends to be proportional. A 2x4 is very rarely measurably different from 1.5"x3.5", but a 2x10 (like you’ve shown) is 1.5"x9 1/4" but is often anywhere between 9 1/8" to 9 3/8"

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s crazy, how can you make a profit if you give the customer the exact measurement? You have to saw a bit off and pad your earnings!

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s not exactly a lie, just a standard. Nominal board sizes were based on the unfinished lumber size. Another 1/4 inch is taken off each side to get a smooth surface that makes it easier to work with.

      Here’s an old image (reddit warning)

      https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2F6Oy1DmXVFs0lyKxq9OmjaI-2gsPj8QO6joLlY1rB7m4.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D4fa73a2eaf8d96d4de26378be1ba9c404b210685

      that shows the rough cuts of boards from a log. When they look at a log, they determine how many of each size they can get from it, and at that point, a 2x4 is 2 inches by 4 inches.

      • 0421008445828ceb46f496700a5fa6@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why does the consumer need to know the dimensions at harvest when it’s been processed multiple times?

        That’s like calling an 4oz can of evaporated milk a gallon because it came from a gallon of milk before processing (I have no clue on the ratio)

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          7 months ago

          I it’s like calling a quarter pounder a quarter pounder. You are not getting a quarter bound of burger after cooking.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            And here I am thinking that it was a burger for reeeeally hungry people. No delusion anymore, it seems

        • gdog05@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I agree with this. Use whatever system you need or want internally, but there’s no reason to force whatever archaic or industry system onto a consumer. Logcutters also use a 1"=1/4 system and that is how they sell wood. A piece of wood that is 2" thick is sold as 8/4. Not 2". I get that they have their system but it seems dickish to force the consumer to use that system. There could be a good argument for it, but I’ve not heard one beyond “what, can’t you do math?”

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            but there’s no reason to force whatever archaic or industry system onto a consumer

            Sure there is. Look up the concept of a “standard” if you don’t understand the reasons.

            Standards only work when they don’t change

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            It’s like a 1/4lb paddy being a different weight before and after cooking. They can’t tell you the final weight, since it’s always going to be different. Same with wood.

            The woods final actual dimensions can vary, so they tell you its original size.

            A 2x10 can be anywhere from 9-3/8thick down do 8-3/4 depending on how it dries.

            • gdog05@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I get that. But this is for kiln dried wood. And this particular issue I’m bitching about isn’t about net loss. It’s selling wood using an internally useful measuring system instead of how the consumer would actually think about it. It’s adding needless complexity, in my mind, when there’s enough factors to consider.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                What? The final dimensions of kiln dried wood can still vary. If they say 1-1/2 and you grab one that’s 1-3/8 you get a post like this.

                So you say the original size, no one needs to do any math (what complexity are you referring to here?) since the final dimensions will always be different once acclimated at the site they will be used.

              • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The consumer (people who work with lumber) knows how the system works. You don’t, because you don’t work with lumber.

                If the boards were precisely measured in mm and binned accordingly, it would help no one because all construction techniques developed for use with lumber account for dimensional inaccuracy.

                Building and working with lumber is different than working with manufactured materials like plywood or whatever.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          You can buy planed or unplaned wood. Called “rough” lumber which is the nominal size instead. Usually only for pressure treated lumber, but it’s available in regular too.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          They don’t, but every plan and instruction going back a looong time refers to things that way.

          Essentially, where they make the wood calls it a 2x4. So the places that process the wood calls it a 2x4, and so on.
          The kilning and planing process used to be much less regular, so if you used actual, you couldn’t buy four 1.5x3.5s, you’d get a 1.6x3.4, a 1.3x3.9, and so on.

          The only consistent way to refer to it was the original sawmill size, and people who built things knew you had to measure the actual size of each piece of wood, or just accept the slop.

          We got better at planing and kilning, and eventually the actual size was standardized. We still had all those plans and bills of material referring to things by their nominal name, to say nothing of the actual builders and engineers who were both used to the nominal measurements and didn’t think it was necessary to change. So stores kept selling things by the name people expected when they were looking for products.

          Most stores now label in both nominal and actual to accommodate for people who don’t know this, since buying lumber and building things isn’t as regular occurrence for a lot of people as it once was.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The consumer doesn’t need to know it. The lumber mill does, and the people responsible for warehousing and logistics, they use nominal sizes because saying “two by four” is easier than “one point five by three point 5.”

        • strawberry@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          its just easier to call it a two by four “yeah I gotta go out and get some 1 and a half by three and a halfs”

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        at that point, a 2x4 is 2 inches by 4 inches.

        From my understanding, as tools have gotten more precise, the raw boards have gotten slightly smaller to reach the same standard size with less waste. So, 2x4 doesn’t even refer to modern unprocessed 2x4s, but rather a hypothetical unprocessed 2x4 at some point in the past.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          That wouldn’t surprise me, but also the standard has been around for so long, changing the size of standard lumber is probably harder than changing the manufacturing process (which is likely automated and computer controlled anyway).

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not entirely true. I lived in a house that was just over a century old. The framing was exactly what it said it was, a 2x4 was 2” by 4”. Same for all the structure. These were mill cut, but still pretty clean. It was WW2-ish and after that we started to get planed lumber that gave us 1.5x3.5. It wasn’t even until probably the early part of the 1900s that lumber started to become “dimensional”, as in the standard sizes we know of today.

          • ferret@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            This, my friend, is no mere “group” of ferrets. It is a horrific amalgam of a quantity greater than 300, bound together with simple twine in a structure of horrific dimension in a way that could only have been conceived by a mind twisted in reckless disregard to even a most basic understanding of the nature of our world.