Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Walking_billboard t1_iuxfhn1 wrote

  1. Because investment in hardware companies has been really low over the last 20 years. Most capital is flowing to software which has much higher margins and less risk.

  2. Because the business doesn't math out. Their calculations on labor costs are overly optimistic. And they assume a "profit" of $13k for four houses. That assumes a builder is doing a steady 4 houses a month (only large builders do this with consistency)

  3. The exterior walls are some of the faster and easiest parts of a home to build, the "win" here is limited.

  4. If your goal is to make affordable modern homes, BOXBL and other pre-fab builders offer a more compelling solution.

  5. The construction industry moves slowly. ICF and SIPS have been fully available and tested for DECADES and are only now starting to become more common.

I love the technology, but it is a niche tool for the foreseeable future.

40

[deleted] t1_iuyluum wrote

[deleted]

9

iFx_ t1_iuyuhxx wrote

Why is that industry so slow for change?

3

yaosio t1_iuz0kq7 wrote

Houses need to last a very long time. The plumbing system could last 75+ years, the house could last 100+ years if you keep up with maintence. This means switching to a new technology that turns out to not work as advertised can be a disaster.

There used to be a copper water pipe replacement called polybutylene. It was cheaper and easier to install than copper, but it turned out to have a short lifespan with leaks happening early in it's life. You might not be able to get homeowners insurance if you have these pipes requiring them to be replaced. They started being installed in the 70's but it wasn't until the 90's the problem was discovered. That's 20+ years of what was thought to be a proven technology.

So construction companies, the reputable ones at least, don't want to leap into something new only to find out many years later there's some horrible problem that could not be forseen.

Then there's the "we've always done it that way" people. Even when something is proven they refuse to use it because they have always done something a different way. These are also the people that shake hands with danger because they think it's manly to breath in rock dust and get lung cancer. When you are near a construction site and hear a guitar riff that's somebody that doesn't know what they're doing. https://youtu.be/Mmrs9GYkbqg

2

iFx_ t1_iuz7hb3 wrote

So essentially because the life expectancy of the finished product needs be so robust obviously everything from the ground up does as well. So like you said, the "tried and true" holds positive sentiment.

0

DylanHate t1_iuzigpx wrote

Not to mention the time required for set-up. You need a completely cleared site with a perfectly level grade. You could probably finish framing a traditional wood home in the time it would take to just get the site ready for one of these.

And if something goes wrong you can just pop a couple studs out and fix it. And now you need trained engineers who can run, fix, and maintain the machine. What happens if it breaks down? The whole job site is shut down. And how many people in the world can fix this machine?

1