Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DntH8IncrsDaMrdrR8 t1_ja3zplq wrote

If the roof has to be off to replace them it seems like I would rather have new joists instead of one new one and the rest old. Especially if all that saved was 5k. Piece of mind alone is worth that 5k to me but ymmv


opuntina t1_ja4015p wrote

That's not how it works. Those new joists would not be any better than the ones removed. This isn't a wear item. A joist may fail and need to be replaced but it isn't like an engine or other moving part. It's either good or it's bad. The costs of this job are mostly due to the homeowner not knowing what they are doing.


DntH8IncrsDaMrdrR8 t1_ja49mw1 wrote

Right it's either good or bad but a 70-year-old one is going to fail much sooner than a brand new one. No?


opuntina t1_ja4b3ci wrote

No. They do not wear out. What happens is they are made or installed poorly, or some other piece fails and allows the joists to get wet which then rots them out. That's why particle board is bad. It will absorb water like a sponge and rot any other wood pieces it touches.


Unless they are failed, you are just wasting money replacing things that are fine. Houses last hundreds of years without any replaced parts if they are well made and well maintained. The replaced parts they DO get are due to water or bugs usually.


daxophoneme t1_ja5q152 wrote

The 70-year-old one could be from a denser, old-growth tree. The newer one will most likely be worse quality lumber.


DecayableBrick t1_ja7iffp wrote

The 70 year old one is most likely old growth lumber and therefore much stronger than the new one. So no.