A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
completely ignores this fact.
I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
In article <[email protected]>, todd
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The main difference is because per linear foot doesn't
> take width into account. Do you want linear foot prices for 4" wide, 6"
> wide, 8" wide, etc?
If the BF pricing is variale based on width and thickness, why does it
make any diff to price it by board foot or linear foot?
Seems to me we're talking pounds or kilograms... It makes no difference
what the unit is.
Which is what Bruce's original point was. The concept of a BF was, at
one point, to negate the variance in how the wood was cut and price it
by the volume you were buying.
Once the pricing per BF varies with thickness and width, the wood may
as well be priced per linear foot, as you're no longer buying a
*volume* of wood, you're buying a *particular* board...
By the linear foot.
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
Dave Balderstone notes:
>If the BF pricing is variale based on width and thickness, why does it
>make any diff to price it by board foot or linear foot?
>
>Seems to me we're talking pounds or kilograms... It makes no difference
>what the unit is.
>
Possibly not, but the board foot measurement evened things out, removed one
variable. Go back to linear feet in the hopes of benefiting the consumer, and
you get a true diversity of effect. Check out prices on the few hardwoods
Lowe's and HD sell the next time you're at one. They sell by linear feet and
the prices range from double bf costs to triple.
>Which is what Bruce's original point was. The concept of a BF was, at
>one point, to negate the variance in how the wood was cut and price it
>by the volume you were buying.
You think? Bruce believes this. I don't. It was to remove a variable.
>Once the pricing per BF varies with thickness and width, the wood may
>as well be priced per linear foot, as you're no longer buying a
>*volume* of wood, you're buying a *particular* board.
Thicker boards cost more because they are more difficult to dry, usually
creating greater losses in the kiln, thus raising the price per cubic inch
(since you don't like working with bf).
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:48:51 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
>oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
>developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
>that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
>completely ignores this fact.
>
>I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
>for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
A thicker, or wider, or longer board is more valuable than one that is
less thick, less wide, less long.
In this it is no different than any other model of availability versus
cost (cf supply and demand).
Board foot pricing is done in preference to linear foot pricing
because boards that are in the rough do not fit into standards of
width and the net volume of the wood is described by the gross width
times the gross thickness times the gross length.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
In article <[email protected]>, todd
<[email protected]> wrote:
> with board feet pricing, there is one variable -
> thickness.
Wrong, and demonstrably so.
> I think it's just a practical matter of posting prices
My point.
> I think you could have a better argument for a per square foot
> pricing model for lumber that a per linear foot.
I think lineal foot is, in essence, a square foot measurement.
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
In article <[email protected]>, todd
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Too bad you didn't bother to demonstrate it.
Sorry todd. Here you go:
Board feet is a measure of volume. Thickness (one dimension) is not the
only variable as we also have to take width (a second dimension) and
length (the third dimension) into account.
So the assertion that "with board feet pricing, there is one variable -
thickness" is demonstrably false.
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
In rec.woodworking
Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've always assumed the extra time required to kiln-dry the thicker lumber is
>the main reason for the cost difference.
I guess I should have made it clear that I understand why thicker and wider
wood costs more. What I'm suggesting is that the purpose of the board foot
was for the same reason we sell steak by the pound and not each steak. It
was a fair way to assess value to different sizes of wood since wood comes
in so many different sizes. I'm just saying it isn't being used that way,
at least not 100%. It is equivelant to saying sirloin steaks are $5.00 a
pound but if you want them thickly sliced, it is $6.00 a pound.
Took a lot of posts to get this far, which is to say, to the right answer.
A foot is a convenient measurement, as is a meter, a cubit, or anything
else. You've got to have a standard reference. All you decimal freaks can
stow your arguments, we're talking two marks on a stick; how you divide or
multiply after that is not germane. As the whole thing starts at the log,
we find three common measurements depending on use in the USA.
1. Cords. A convenient way of figuring how much wood you have to cut to
fill a cart or a railroad car, and the numbers don't get as big when your
basic unit is already 128 cubic feet. Of course there's a lot of air in a
cord, depending on who stacks it, and the logs themselves. Not a reliable
measurement for other wood usage.
2. Pounds. If you have a lot of air in your stack, it doesn't make as much
pulp, and though in the rough and ready days of abundance a general
equivalence between cords and pounds was good enough, this age of reduced
cutting and narrow profit margins makes the weight of the stack the basis
for payment. BTW, species and moisture content of the load determine prices
on equal poundage here.
3. Board feet. Back to a volumetric measure, because the real value is once
again in the cartage and kiln operation. A truck or car is of fixed volume,
as is a kiln, and the number of boards per cord is anything but precise.
How can one chisel at this level? well, the days of unedged boards are gone,
so the new subdivision is "grade" of board. Softwood is graded differently
than hardwood, taking into account its primary use is presumed functional
rather than aesthetic, though display grades are available. Frequency of
occurrence of a length/width "cutting" is the primary criterion in hardwood.
Now to value added, which is a result of the high end and hobby market,
where thicker and wider boards are sold more dearly. Industry buys in such
quantities and requires such a variety of "cuts" that they can buy a
relatively lower grade (skip planed for optical evaluation) and by
gluing/glazing for a finish, make great use of everything but, as they used
to say in the slaughterhouse - the squeal. Hobbyists and the high end
custom business want wide boards and greater thicknesses, and since the cost
of material is much less than the labor cost of the piece, they're willing
to pay more for this super display grade lumber.
I guess this last should endear the sellers to the socially conscious
members of the group, as it soaks the rich for the privilege of supporting
their silverware on an 18 inch wide single board borne on 2x2" solid legs
rather than four 4.5" wide boards borne on glued-up and
glazed-to-hide-the-fact legs.
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Board foot is a volume measure. You can have length measures, area
> measures, volume measures and value measures. The first two are
> obviously too trivial to be useful (usually). The last (taking into
> account extra-value for wide boards, good figure etc.) is too complex
> to be widely useful.
>
> So volume measures sit at a usability maximum between being too
> sophisticated and not sophisticated enough. Anyone with a tape measure
> can use it, and it's (almost) unambiguous and objective, no matter who
> does the measuring.
Within that "circle" are also many grades of lumber. If the sawyer doesn't
rotate it at the proper time, regardless of the width of the next board, or
the average width, he can lose more money than the difference between a band
and circular kerf.
He could also, given the market, end up with a bunch of thick stock and no
place to sell it.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Draw a circle to represent the cross-section of a log. Say it's 24" in
> diameter. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the bark is
removed,
> the log is a perfectly smooth and straight cylinder ten feet long, and the
saw
> removes a 1/8" kerf.
>
> Now cut it into 16/4 boards. If my math is right, this log will yield one
> board 23-5/8 wide, two boards 20-3/4, and two boards 13-1/4 (to the
nearest
> eighth inch). That's 305 board feet, roughly. About 76 square feet at
3-7/8"
> thick makes 24.5 cubic feet.
>
> Cut the same log into 8/4 boards. It yields one board 23-7/8 wide, two
boards
> 23-1/4, two 21-3/4, two 19-1/2, two 15-7/8, and two 9-1/2 (again, to the
> nearest eighth inch). That's 340 board feet. About 170 square feet at
1-7/8"
> thick makes 26.5 cubic feet.
>
> Cut it into 4/4 boards. Yield is one board just under 24 wide, two boards
> 23-3/4, two 23-1/2, two 23, two 22-1/4, two 21-1/4, two 20-1/8, two
18-3/4,
> two 17, two 14-5/8, two 11-5/8, and two 6-7/8. That's 358 board feet, at
7/8"
> thick, or 26.1 cubic feet.
>
In news:[email protected],
Bruce <[email protected]> spewed forth and said:
> In rec.woodworking
> Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've always assumed the extra time required to kiln-dry the thicker
>> lumber is the main reason for the cost difference.
>
> I guess I should have made it clear that I understand why thicker and
> wider wood costs more. What I'm suggesting is that the purpose of
> the board foot was for the same reason we sell steak by the pound
> and not each steak. It was a fair way to assess value to different
> sizes of wood since wood comes in so many different sizes. I'm just
> saying it isn't being used that way, at least not 100%. It is
> equivelant to saying sirloin steaks are $5.00 a pound but if you want
> them thickly sliced, it is $6.00 a pound.
Your not looking at it right. A board foot is 144" square inches(12x12x1)
It doesn't matter how thick or wide it is, its still sold at a board foot. I
buy a
lot of 5/4 and 12/4 poplar for frames, the 12/4 is the same price as the
5/4(1.55 bf).
I can see why you might pay a premium for some exotic woods, but most
domestic should be the same.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:16:05 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>First off, the thicker you slice a log, the greater the amount of
>waste, so there is a lower yield of usable wood per log.
Wouldn't thinner cuts waste more wood as saw kerfs?
Barry
LOL.... ;~) And I never even felt the hook...
"Rumpty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon,
>
> I can't believe you got suckered into this useless argument... ;-)
>
> --
>
> Rumpty
>
> Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
And how wide would that board being sold by the linear foot be? That
question basically answers your question of why bf.
Thicker lumber is more valuable for a number of reason, not the least of
which is that it is increasingly harder to come by and correspondingly
expensive to produce.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Bruce" wrote in message
> I If you are going to charge more
> for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
>oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
>developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
>that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
>completely ignores this fact.
"Current lumber market" has nothing to do with it. Thicker wood will always
cost more. First off, the thicker you slice a log, the greater the amount of
waste, so there is a lower yield of usable wood per log. Also, thicker wood is
more difficult to dry properly, and losses due to defects induced during
drying are greater, which lowers yield further. Hence the higher price.
>
>I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
>for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
Because that does not take into account the width of the board.
Board-foot pricing accounts for length, width, and thickness. If the dealer
does not price by board foot, he must price by square foot, with separate
per-square-foot prices for each thickness. This is indistinguishable from
board-foot pricing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
I've always assumed the extra time required to kiln-dry the thicker lumber is
the main reason for the cost difference.
Bruce wrote:
> A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
> oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
> developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
> that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
> completely ignores this fact.
>
> I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
> for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
--
To reply, change the chemical designation to its common name.
That seem to make more sense...Tom
>From: Steve Turner [email protected]
>Date: 10/12/2003 5:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
Steve wrote:
>I've always assumed the extra time required to kiln-dry the thicker lumber is
the main reason for the cost difference.
>Bruce wrote:
>> A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
>> oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
>> developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
>> that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
>> completely ignores this fact.
>>
>> I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
>> for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
>
Someday, it'll all be over....
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
> oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
> developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
> that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
> completely ignores this fact.
>
> I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
> for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
OK, I'll pile on. The main difference is because per linear foot doesn't
take width into account. Do you want linear foot prices for 4" wide, 6"
wide, 8" wide, etc? Of course, you would need that for 4/4, 5/5, 6/4, etc,
so now instead of having a per BF price for different thicknesses, you would
have per LF pricing for a combination of width and thickness. Presto! Twice
the number of variables. I think we'll stay with board feet.
todd
huh?
Of course you know that thickness plays into the board foot calculation so
not sure where you're going with the linear foot suggestion.
I think they charge more per board/ft of 8" wide stock than they do 4" wide
stock too. Simple economics caused solely by the fact that trees are round.
Higher yield with narrow vs. wide and same for thinner vs fatter.
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
> oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
> developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
> that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
> completely ignores this fact.
>
> I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
> for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
"Dave Balderstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:121020032305222111%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, todd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The main difference is because per linear foot doesn't
> > take width into account. Do you want linear foot prices for 4" wide, 6"
> > wide, 8" wide, etc?
>
> If the BF pricing is variale based on width and thickness, why does it
> make any diff to price it by board foot or linear foot?
>
> Seems to me we're talking pounds or kilograms... It makes no difference
> what the unit is.
>
> Which is what Bruce's original point was. The concept of a BF was, at
> one point, to negate the variance in how the wood was cut and price it
> by the volume you were buying.
>
> Once the pricing per BF varies with thickness and width, the wood may
> as well be priced per linear foot, as you're no longer buying a
> *volume* of wood, you're buying a *particular* board...
>
> By the linear foot.
>
> djb
>
> --
> There are no socks in my email address.
>
> "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
Well, where I shop, the total price is just marked on each board, so all of
this is a moot point.
To address your question, with board feet pricing, there is one variable -
thickness. With linear foot pricing, there are two variables - thickness
and width. I think it's just a practical matter of posting prices. If you
have a price sheet for linear foot, for each species you would have to have
a matrix of thickness and width to arrive at a per LF price for a particular
board. As we know with BF pricing, you just have a price for each
thickness. It seems to me that LF pricing works on things like molding
where the only variable is length. That gets me thinking about another way
to explain this.
A pricing scheme should be based on the number of variables in the product.
Molding is priced per LF because that's the only variable. Since hardwood
lumber is variable by both length and width (for a given thickness) you need
a measurement that takes both into account (a la board feet). I think you
could have a better argument for a per square foot pricing model for lumber
that a per linear foot.
todd
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Too bad you didn't bother to demonstrate it. I'm looking at a price
list
> > for Cherry right now. There's a price for 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, 8/4,
12/4,
> > and 16/4. Guess what all those measurements are? They're thickness.
> That
> > means the price varies by thickness. On my price list, it's the only
> thing
> > that price varies by. Looks like it's the only variable to me.
>
> You mean the price (per board foot) of 3/4 is different from 4/4 that is
> different from 5/4? That is not logical as most price by the bd. ft. and
> only vary for say, 12/4 and up, if at all.
> Ed
I don't know where you buy your lumber, but here in the Chicago area, there
a only a few decent places to purchase hardwood lumber. I have two price
lists in front of me. Owl Hardwood charges $4.67/BF for 3/4 cherry, $6.47
for 4/4, $6.74 for 5/4 and ... well you get the idea. Same for The Hardwood
Connection. I don't know what's illogical about it. I think it's been
pretty well discusses that documented that it's more expensive to finish
thicker lumber. There may also be a supply/demand thing happening too.
todd
I'm guessing maybe you're pointing to something that annoys me. How a 1 x 6
is actually 3/4" x 5'3/4".
I know I'm not the only one to dork up a project due to forgetting that wood
is not the size it's actually sold as. Wood is expensive enough, is it too
much to ask for that extra 1/4", rather than forcing me to buy the next size
up and end up with alot of waste from milling it down?
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've always assumed the extra time required to kiln-dry the thicker
lumber is
> >the main reason for the cost difference.
>
> I guess I should have made it clear that I understand why thicker and
wider
> wood costs more. What I'm suggesting is that the purpose of the board
foot
> was for the same reason we sell steak by the pound and not each steak.
It
> was a fair way to assess value to different sizes of wood since wood comes
> in so many different sizes. I'm just saying it isn't being used that way,
> at least not 100%. It is equivelant to saying sirloin steaks are $5.00 a
> pound but if you want them thickly sliced, it is $6.00 a pound.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:52:16 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>First off, the thicker you slice a log, the greater the amount of
>>waste, so there is a lower yield of usable wood per log.
>
>Wouldn't thinner cuts waste more wood as saw kerfs?
Doesn't matter. Your main thickness loss is in the boards cupping
during drying, then you lose timber when you machine them flat
afterwards. If you have the time and the log is big enough, then a
thicker board can be dried and resawn afterwards, which means you're
only losing curvature off two surfaces, not four.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've always assumed the extra time required to kiln-dry the thicker
lumber is
> >the main reason for the cost difference.
>
> I guess I should have made it clear that I understand why thicker and
wider
> wood costs more. What I'm suggesting is that the purpose of the board
foot
> was for the same reason we sell steak by the pound and not each steak.
It
> was a fair way to assess value to different sizes of wood since wood comes
> in so many different sizes. I'm just saying it isn't being used that way,
> at least not 100%. It is equivelant to saying sirloin steaks are $5.00 a
> pound but if you want them thickly sliced, it is $6.00 a pound.
Your reasoning why wood is sold by the board foot is wrong. By the board
foot is simply a way to charge for 144 cubic inches of wood. Regardless of
the type of wood, a board foot is a specific measurement and quantity of
wood. Different cuts of wood from a specific tree will sell for different
prices. As for your steak comparison, why does a pound of steak cost $5.00
and a pound of Tender Loin cost $10? They both come from the same cow don't
they.
"Dave Balderstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:131020030111537581%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, todd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > with board feet pricing, there is one variable -
> > thickness.
>
> Wrong, and demonstrably so.
Too bad you didn't bother to demonstrate it. I'm looking at a price list
for Cherry right now. There's a price for 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, 8/4, 12/4,
and 16/4. Guess what all those measurements are? They're thickness. That
means the price varies by thickness. On my price list, it's the only thing
that price varies by. Looks like it's the only variable to me.
> > I think you could have a better argument for a per square foot
> > pricing model for lumber that a per linear foot.
>
> I think lineal foot is, in essence, a square foot measurement.
Can't argue with that logic. By the same token, I guess square feet is
essence cubic feet. Interesting that you decided not to comment on one of
my points. Do you want a price list with a matrix of thicknesses and
widths?
> djb
todd
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
> oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
> developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood. The very fact
> that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
> completely ignores this fact.
>
> I think it is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to charge more
> for thicker wood, why the hell just not list it in price per linear foot?
You are making this too complicated. Ignore thickness, width, length
when comparing price.
You are looking at 3 different pieces of lumber. They are priced at
$15, $20, $25. The $20 one is about 1/3 longer than the one priced at
$15 and they are both 1" thick. The $25 board is shorter than either
of the other 2 but it is 2" thick. Assuming you need 1" stock for
your project, which is the better buy? To tell you would have to
measure the length, width, and thickness of each board to arrive at
the volume, then divide by 144 to get the b.f. OR if they were marked
in price per b.f. you could just compare the price per bf.
2" and 1" stock of the same wood are two different animals. If you
need 2" stock you can't buy 1" and if you need 1" and you get 2"
instead you have to resaw it first before surfacing it, so why would
you even bother unless it was significantly less expensive? And how
could you tell if it was cheaper unless it was marked in b.f?
-Chris
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you choose to pay for surfaced wood, you have to pay for the waste
also.
> If you were to buy rough cut wood, you would be charged for only the wood
> that you leave with.
For most projects, you'd surface the wood before use. So, isn't that the
same as paying for the waste anyway?
"Dave Balderstone" <[email protected]
> If the BF pricing is variale based on width and thickness, why does it
> make any diff to price it by board foot or linear foot?
Because there would be a different price for every width of each board also
if all was sold by the linear foot. Normally wood sold by the board foot is
not uniform in width as it is normally sold with rough edges. If the wood
that is sold in BF was sold by the foot, you would need a price for all
widths, 2", 2-1/8", 2-1/4", 2-3/8", 2-1/2", 2-5/8", 2-3/4", 2-7/8" and so
on. That is 8 different prices for 1 thickness of wood that is between 2
and 3" wide. Now multiply that times the boards that are 3", 4", 5", 6",
7", 8", 9", 10", 11", 12" and so on. There would be 96 different prices for
1 thickness of wood ranging from 2 to 13" wide. Measuring in BF is simply
easier to price with 3 or 4 different prices depending on thickness.
Wood sold in linear feet is milled to specific widths and normally there are
only 6 different widths sold between 2 and 12" wide for each thickness.
What is your point? You pay for all waste associated with the board you buy
including the waste that every tool creates when used on the board. Sawing,
sanding, planing, jointing, drilling, they all create waste.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fQxib.97291$ko%[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > If you choose to pay for surfaced wood, you have to pay for the waste
> also.
> > If you were to buy rough cut wood, you would be charged for only the
wood
> > that you leave with.
>
> For most projects, you'd surface the wood before use. So, isn't that the
> same as paying for the waste anyway?
>
>
"Dave Balderstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:131020031434499274%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, todd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Too bad you didn't bother to demonstrate it.
>
> Sorry todd. Here you go:
>
> Board feet is a measure of volume. Thickness (one dimension) is not the
> only variable as we also have to take width (a second dimension) and
> length (the third dimension) into account.
>
> So the assertion that "with board feet pricing, there is one variable -
> thickness" is demonstrably false.
>
> djb
The board foot price builds in the length and width for a particular
thickness. You keep avoiding the question of how you are gonna make a price
list. You want to have a matrix or what?
todd
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:48:51 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>A buddy and I were talking the other day about the price of 4/4 oak vs 8/4
>oak and the thought occurred to us. The whole concept of board foot was
>developed to equalize pricing over different sizes of wood.
Board foot is a volume measure. You can have length measures, area
measures, volume measures and value measures. The first two are
obviously too trivial to be useful (usually). The last (taking into
account extra-value for wide boards, good figure etc.) is too complex
to be widely useful.
So volume measures sit at a usability maximum between being too
sophisticated and not sophisticated enough. Anyone with a tape measure
can use it, and it's (almost) unambiguous and objective, no matter who
does the measuring.
Here in the UK, we also use volume measures, but use the cubic foot
instead of the board foot (12 bf in a cube foot).
>The very fact
>that thicker wood costs more per board foot in the current lumber market,
Only at retail. If you're buying a whole flitch (a sawn butt) from a
small timberyard, you'll probably deal in cube feet or bf. Anything
else just gets too complex to work out. Wood is cheap, bulky and
awkward to assess or judge more precisely than this - and you've both
got other work to be getting on with.
BTW - Do you ever use "Hoppus feet" or similar in the USA ? They're a
measure for round logs, indicating a value based on their likely yield
as sawn timber.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
Leon,
I can't believe you got suckered into this useless argument... ;-)
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What is your point? You pay for all waste associated with the board you
buy
> including the waste that every tool creates when used on the board.
Sawing,
> sanding, planing, jointing, drilling, they all create waste.
>
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:fQxib.97291$ko%[email protected]...
> >
> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > If you choose to pay for surfaced wood, you have to pay for the waste
> > also.
> > > If you were to buy rough cut wood, you would be charged for only the
> wood
> > > that you leave with.
> >
> > For most projects, you'd surface the wood before use. So, isn't that the
> > same as paying for the waste anyway?
> >
> >
>
>
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'm just saying it isn't being used that way,
> at least not 100%. It is equivelant to saying sirloin steaks are $5.00 a
> pound but if you want them thickly sliced, it is $6.00 a pound.
It works just that way. Honest. the stores get more per pound for thin
sliced boneless pork chops.
I usually buy meat at BJ's as the price is good, but today Stop & Shop had
whole loins on sale for $1.79 a pound. They took that same piece of meat and
were selling it cut into roasts for $4.49 and boneless cops for $3.39.
Amazing. It all starts out as the same thing. Yes, I've seen thicker cut
steaks at higher prices also. I save a bundle buying primal cuts and doing
it myself though.
You may also notice that wider boards also command a higher price than
narrow ones. There is a premium as there is far less of them available. I
think it works the same way with thicker also, but as pointed out, longer
kiln times would make a difference also. My supplier has a gauge that he
puts on the wood to read out the board feet of the random width boards that
I buy. Only takes a second and it is accurate.
If you want to buy and pay by the linear foot, you can do so at Home Depot.
They price hardwoods that way and all are uniform width.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
In article <[email protected]>, *removethis*[email protected] wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:16:05 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>First off, the thicker you slice a log, the greater the amount of
>>waste, so there is a lower yield of usable wood per log.
>
>Wouldn't thinner cuts waste more wood as saw kerfs?
>
Maybe if you're making veneer. Not if you're making lumber.
Draw a circle to represent the cross-section of a log. Say it's 24" in
diameter. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the bark is removed,
the log is a perfectly smooth and straight cylinder ten feet long, and the saw
removes a 1/8" kerf.
Now cut it into 16/4 boards. If my math is right, this log will yield one
board 23-5/8 wide, two boards 20-3/4, and two boards 13-1/4 (to the nearest
eighth inch). That's 305 board feet, roughly. About 76 square feet at 3-7/8"
thick makes 24.5 cubic feet.
Cut the same log into 8/4 boards. It yields one board 23-7/8 wide, two boards
23-1/4, two 21-3/4, two 19-1/2, two 15-7/8, and two 9-1/2 (again, to the
nearest eighth inch). That's 340 board feet. About 170 square feet at 1-7/8"
thick makes 26.5 cubic feet.
Cut it into 4/4 boards. Yield is one board just under 24 wide, two boards
23-3/4, two 23-1/2, two 23, two 22-1/4, two 21-1/4, two 20-1/8, two 18-3/4,
two 17, two 14-5/8, two 11-5/8, and two 6-7/8. That's 358 board feet, at 7/8"
thick, or 26.1 cubic feet.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Too bad you didn't bother to demonstrate it. I'm looking at a price list
> for Cherry right now. There's a price for 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, 8/4, 12/4,
> and 16/4. Guess what all those measurements are? They're thickness.
That
> means the price varies by thickness. On my price list, it's the only
thing
> that price varies by. Looks like it's the only variable to me.
You mean the price (per board foot) of 3/4 is different from 4/4 that is
different from 5/4? That is not logical as most price by the bd. ft. and
only vary for say, 12/4 and up, if at all.
Ed