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.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    911·
    7 months ago

    Um, wait. I would think that violates some sort of law (but I guess maybe we haven’t codified this?). I mean, building plans expect standards in materials, right? So how can a building meet codes if the materials are not within the expected specs?

    • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
      94·
      7 months ago

      The 2x4s that have been sized this way do meet structural code. It was found that a full 2x4 is way over spec’d for what they were used for, so why bother wasting extra parts of the tree?

      Pretty much everything built with dimensional lumber in the last century has been done with undersized 2x4s, and it’s fine. The name stuck for historical reasons. Companies that build houses and order this stuff by the pallet all know what the real size is, and so do building inspectors.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.caEnglish
        7·
        7 months ago

        Rough 2x4s were 2" x 4". Then we started finishing them for better consistency, taking about 0.5" from each dimension. Later we started using saws with narrower kerfs to have less loss due to saw blade width, better cutting and planing systems so the rough size could be smaller and still have the same finished size, then they lowered finished size some more.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        47·
        7 months ago

        Pretty much everything built with dimensional lumber in the last century has been done with undersized 2x4s, and it’s fine.

        It’s fine, folks. Nothing to see here.